The legal position governing such matters is well settled in Sakrr Vasu v. State of U.P. Ofhers

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the inaction of the respondents No.2 & 3 not register the FIR as per the contents complaint filed by the petitioner dated 13-08- 2018, is illegal improper arbitrary, violating the constitutional rights and natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 to entrust enquiry to 4th respondent the real truth will come. lA NO: 1 OF 201q Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct / the respondents No. 2 & 3 to register FIR as per the contents complaint filed by the petitioner dated 13-08-2018 and do investigation. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY .O Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. PRADEEP, ASST. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33753 of 20tB ORDER: o This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief '...to issue an order, direction pafticulatly ore in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropiate writ dedaing the inaclion of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 not rcgislering the FtR as per the @ntents complaint filed by the petitioner dated 13-08-2018, is illegal, improper atbitrary, vblating the constitutional nghts and natural iustbe, and an*quently direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to entrust enquiry to 4h respondent the real truth will come and pass "

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, upon consideration of the petitioner's complaint dated 13.08.2018, it was found that the averments therein disclose a civil dispute. Consequently, no crime was registered, and the petitioner was advised to avail appropriate civil remedies. lt is further submitted that, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies available under law. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also contends that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case, is not maintainable under \ o 2 Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submission of a wriften complaint, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. However, the stand taken by the respondent police authorities clearly indicates that they have exercised their jurisdictional discretion in concluding that the dispute raased by the petrtioner is of a cavil nature. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved should have availed the available statutory remedies under CrPC/BNSS.

7. The legal position governing such matters is well settled in Sakrr Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ofhers [AtR 2008 SC 907]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that where the grievance pertains to the refusal or failure of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the appropriate course is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate, effective, and comprehensive mechanism to address such grievances, and that recourse must first be had to the statutory remedies available therein.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent decisions. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others [AlR\ 2020 SC 387], a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court I I i i l ! I t I i I I I i I I / J reiterated that the proper remedy for an aggrieved party, in the event of police inaction, is to avail the procedures prescribed under the Cr'P C' The Court clarified that bypassing these remedies and directly invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is impermissible, except in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

9. ln light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence I of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought by the petitioner under Articb 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia cannot be entertained. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the grievance before the magistrate concemed, in accordance with law, should the cause still persist.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any , shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC to SRI MULLANGI RAMI REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court forthe State of Telangana. [OUTI 3. Two CD Copies BN t i,i: S t, ,i'. t'-' () -c r,ll. * 2 3 l,',q irl/n z .^ I PATCP zO HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 ORDER WP.No.33753 of 2018 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS b 2f