Mrs. Sumaina Sharfi v. '1. The State of Telangana

5. The lnspector of Police, Women Police Station, DD, CCS, Hyderabad 6. Mrs.Himmat Khatoon @ Siraj, W/o.Adil Ali Khan, Aged about 55 years, Occ Black Magic Business by running a Darbar, Rio.H.No.8-3-'164/C/26, Old Post Office Road, Opp Little Flower School, Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad 7. Mr.Adil Ali Khan @ I\rlohammed Haseeb Tahir, S/o. Mohammed Tahir, Aged about 28 years, Occ Business, R/o.H.No.8-3-1641C126, Old Post Office Road, Opp Little Flower School, Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad B. Mr.Syed Qasim, S/o.Syed Taher. R/o H.No.8-3-1641C126, Old Post Office Road, Opp Little Flower School. Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad

9. Mr.Syed Hasham Taha, S/o.Syed Taher, R/o.H.No.B-3-1641C126, Old Post Office Road, Opp Little Flower School, Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad 1O. Mr.Mohammed Fazullah Feroz, S/o.Not known, Rl/o.H.No.8-3-164/C/26, Old Post Office Road, Opp Little Flower School. Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad

11.Mrs.Sara Jabeen, W/o.Not known, R/o, H.No.8-3-164/C126,Old Post Office Road, Opp Little Flower School, Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad

12.Mr.Owais Talib, Sio.Mohammed Fazullah Feroz, R/o.H.No.B-3-164/C/26, Old Post Office Road. Opp Little Flower School, Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad

13.Miss Sana Mohammedi, Dio. Mohammed Fazullah Feroz, Rl/o.H.No.8-3- 1641C126, Old Post Office Road, Opp Little Flower School, Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad

14. Mr.Syed Saleemuddin Khizar, S/o.Not known, Rr/o.H.No.8-3-164/C/26, Old Post Office Road, Opp Little Flower School, Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad

15.MissAnees, D/o. Not known, Rl/o.H.No.8-3-'1641C126, OH Post ffitce Road, Opp Little Flower School, Vikaspuri, Erragadda, Hyderabad

16.The Station House Officer, Sanathnagar Police Station, Hyderabad. (Rl 6 is impleaded as per C.O. dt. 20-01-20'17 in WPMP 1588 of I 7) ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [\,4andamus by declaring the action of the Official Respondent Nos.1 to 3 more particularly the Respondent No.3 in not registering FIR against the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 15 in pursuance of the Petitioners written complaint dt.19- 12-2016 as arbitrary, discriminatory, highhanded and ex-facie illegal, dereliction of duty and also violation of Article 14 of Constitution of tndia and consequently may direct the Respondent No.3 by entrusting a Special Officer under his supervision to register FIR against the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 15 in pursuance of the Petitioners written complaint dt.'19-12-2016 with an immediate effect, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 56832 OF 20'16) 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 Respondent No.3 by entrusting a Special Officer under his supervision to take necessary actron by registering FIR against the Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 15 in pursuance of the Petitioner's written complaint dt.19-12-2016 with an immediate effect. in the interest of justice pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAZIR AHMED KHAN (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 5 & 16: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, I AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 TO 9, 14 & '15: SRI K.JAMALI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.10 TO 13: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 46154 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Ariicle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...1o rbsue a Writ, Oder or Direction, more particulady, one in the nature of 'Wit of Mandamus' by declaing the action of the Official Respondent Nos. 1 fo 3, more pafticulafiy, the Respondent No. 3 in not registeing FIR against lhe Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 to 15 in pursuance of the Petitionels witten complaint dt.19-12-2016, as arbitrary, disciminatory, highhaded and ex-facie illegal, dereliction of duty and also violation of Article 14 of Constitution of lndia and consequently may direct the Respondent No. 3 by entrusting a Special Oflicer under his superuision to register FIR against the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 6lo 15 in pursuance of the Petitioner's wriften complaint dt.19-12-2016 with an immediate effect, in the interest of justice and may pass such other Order or Orders . .."

2. None appeared for the petitioner

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 'l to 5 and 16, submits that respondent No.3 never received any representation/complaint dated 19.12.2016, thus, the contention raised in the petition is without basis. He further submits 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 P'rible 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the 2 ^rr&/ V.P. No. 461 54 of 2016 well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 19.12.2016, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a cnme

6. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakln Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907) the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 ("CrPC ") (now Bharatiya Nagaik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory ftamework to address such grievances

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others I I / 3 ivr&rr W.P. No. 46154 of 2016 I,l (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarifted that the proper course for an aggrieved pa(y is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including apprmching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. B. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should her grievance still subsist

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ CTION OFFICER One CC to SRI NAZIR AHMED KHAN, Advocate [O One CC to SRI K.JAMALI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To 1 2 3

4. PSK. BS sK HIGH COURT DATED:1110912025 ORDER WP.No.46154 of 2016 .1 -c, (, 2 T JAN -t' ,', i x DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C9 9 b.\ 6 ,tV