Hanumandla Ram Reddy S/o Late lr v. 1. The. State of Telangana

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m:r be pleased to direct the Respondent No.5 for register the compliant of the Petitror er, dated 26.05.2017 against the Respondent No.6 to 9, pending disposal of the a r rve writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. BUCHI BABU (NOT PRES ENT) Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5: SRI G. ANIKETH tl :DDY, AGP FOR HOV E Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 9: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITI ON No. 18906 0F 2017 ORDER This writ Petition is fired under Nlicre 226 of the constitution of rndia seeking the following relief: "- -.to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS dectaing the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 to S for not registeing the complaint of the petitioner, dated 26.05.2017 against the Respondenl Nos. 6 fo 9, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of naturat justice and consequentty, pass such other order or orders as this Hon'bte Courl may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.',

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. t\tlr. Q.Aniketh Reddy, rearned Assistant Government preader for Home, appearing on beharf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition-namery, a direction to the porice authorities to register a criminal case-is not maintainable under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia, in view of the weil-setfled regar position raid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

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 26.0s.2011 , the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked ,J : , ! ; I I . t I ' i i l I t I I 2 A IR,/ IV'.P. No. 18906 oJ 20t 7 the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the porice ir rthorities to register a cnme_

6. The legal position governing matters of this naturr is well setfled and no longer res integra. rn sakiri vasu v. state of tJ.p r others (ArR 2oog SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically r:ld that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High courl rnder Articte 226 is ordinarily not available. The court emphasized that tt,r code of criminal Procedure, 1973 ("cr.p.c.") (now Bharatiya Nagarik )uraksha sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory frirr rework to address such grievances. 7 ' This principre has been consistenfly reaffirmed in s ubsequent judiciar pronouncements. Most notably, in M. subramaniam v. !. Janaki & others (AlR 2020 SC 387) a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon,te Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved pa. y is to avail the remedies provided under the cr.p.c., incruding approacl ng the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 cr p.c. rather than direct, invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. ln light of these setfled legal principles, and in ttrr absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that wourd w: rrant intervention NIIII/ IY.P. No. 18906 o[2017 by this court under Articre 226,rhe 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 his grievance still subsist o 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/- A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI K. BUCHI BABU' Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP.for Home' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad- [OUTI Two CD CoPies To 1 2 J MP TKS d- :1 I,i I :l I i ' t I t t ! ; I' I i !l "'./ HIGH COURT DATIlD:03/09/2025 ii! J( 0I Bt ). 62ll /, ,i'.i€ !!<'' t \ I \ * ORDER WP.Nc, 18906 of 2017 DISMISSING THE !'t'RIT PETITION AS NOT I\I AINTAINABLE WII HOUT COSTS ,$ \zc