The High Court · 2025

1. smt.Talari Antharnma, w/o late papaiah, Age about 60 years, occ House yuife, R/o Komisettipalli Village, Marpalli Mindal, nangaiedOy lVitaraUaOj District. 2- Nayqb G,oud, S/o Venkataramana, age about 49 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o ^ Komisettipalli Village, ttlarpalli tt/andai, Rangareddy (Vit<araOad)bistrict. 3. .9y.po Arif Patel, .9lo 49rql, age 49.yg?!:g, Occ cuttivation, R/ri Komisettipaui ...PETITIONERS Village, tMarpalli Mandal, Rangareddlr (Vikarabad) District. AND Hills, Hyderabad.

5. Smt.Shaheda Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

1. The state oj r_e.l.angalp, .Rep. by its principal secretary, Home Department, 2. The Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau, State of Telangana, Banjara 3. Ihe Deputy Superintendent oI Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Brngg, Rang-areddy.District at Telangana Hou_sing Board Colony,'tr/dnoranjin . 9.orp]pl,-l\r1..8-,.BesideAjanta gate, rihiuition Grolnds, J.N.Roail, Hyderabid. 4. The Chief Vigilance. Officer, Corporation Banks for South lndii, 'Corporate Ofice at Mangaladevi temple road, Pandeswar, Manglore - 575001, Karnataka State. earlier tMandal Revenue Officer, fvlarpally mandal, Bangareddy _ District present Tahsildar of tr/ominp6t Mandll Offiga: Rangareddy District. 6. Vi.lgn presently working at Collectorate of Vikarabad, erstwhile Rangareddy 7. Mr.Pasha, CgpO.ufer Operator, Office of the Tahsildar, Marpalli Mandal, Rlng"reddy District presently working at Collectorate of Vikarabdd District. . 8. K.Ravi Kum.ar, .It4anager. of Corpoiation bank, Budera branch, Munipalli _ Mandal, Medak (Sangareddy) District. 9. $_amesh,.lvlanager gf_poporation Bank, Budera branch, Munipalli Mandal, 10.Md.saleem, S/o..lqgni IYiy?,.:rg" about 40 years, R/o Komsettypalli village, lVedak (Sangareddy) Distfict. ^B.egum, District. Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad (Rangareddy) District Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in ...RESPONDENTS the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in not consiclering the petitioners complaint dated 02-05-2017 and 10-03-2017, as illegal, arllitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequenly direct the respondents to register the crime against the culprits and investigate into the m,atter thoroughly and to file the charge sheet, in the interest of justice, NO: 1 P. NO 1 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the:circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner's complaints dated 02- 05-2017 and 10-03-2017 respectively, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BOL|-EPALLI SAt RAM GOUD counsel f<rr the Respondent No.1: sRr M. sRtNrvAS, AGp FoR HOME counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: sRl r. BALMOHAN REDDY, sc cuM SPECIAL I'UBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR ACB (sc-sPL PP FOR TG ACB) Counselfor the Respondent Nos. 8&g: Ms. AKA THAKUR Counsel fcrr the Respondent Nos. 4to7&10:-- The Court made the following: ORDER ,.${ d, ::t t -.: - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: '...fo r.ssue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in not ansideing the petitioners' complaint dated O2-OL2O17 and 1G03-2017, as illegat, arbitrary and violation of principles of naturat justice and consequently direct the respondents to register the cime against the cutprits and investigate into the mafter. tfrroughly and to fiie the charge sheet, in the interest of iustie, and pass..."

2. None appeared for the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. T.Balamohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Ms. Alka Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 and 9.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that, upon receipt of the petitioner's representations dated 02.05.2017 and 10.03.2017, the lnspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, addressed a letter to the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). Upon verification of the records, the RDO, vide Letter No. N1177t2017, dated-.07.2017, reported that the signature of the officer who had issued the PPB/TDs required verifi€tion with the original documents to determine their genuineness. lt was further communicated that, based on the materia! _--\ -a <, 2 available, no involvement of any Revenue officials was found in the matter. lt is further submitted that, in the meantime, the banker, who had advranced loans on the basis of the disputed documents, lodged a complaint whereupon a crime was registered. The said crime pertains to the very same allegations raised in the petitioner's representations. Accordirrgly, no separate or additional crime was registered on the basis of the petitioner's report. Hence, it is prayed that appropriate orders be passed

5. I trave perused the material placed on record

6. Ttre contention of the petitioners is that the respondent authoriti,=s failed to act upon their complairrts dated 02.05.2017 and

10.03.2017 and did not register a crime in pursuance thereof. The explanation offered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 makes it clear that they have duly exercised their discretion and acted within their jurisdiction.

7. However, if the petitioners were genuinely aggrieved by the alleged non-registration of a crime, the proper course available under law wa:; to approach the competent Magistrate by invoking the remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."). Without first exhausting these efficacious statutory remedies, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Adicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia is not maintainable. e a)

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively laid down this legal position in Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe of IJ.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC g07) and M. Subramaniam v. s. Janaki & others (AlR 2020 SC 387), wherein it was held that when a grievance pertains to the non- registration or improper investigation of a crime, the aggriev6d party must first resort to the remedies available under the Cr.P.C.

9. The affidavit and the material on record also reveal that the petitioners have directly approached this Court seeking a direction to register a case, without availing the statutory remedies available under law.

10. tn view of the settled legal position referred to above, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court finds that the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the rights of the petitioners are reserved to avail appropriate remedies available under law, if the cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. IVAS REDDY /TRUE COPY// OFFICER 1 One CCto S RI. BOLLEPALLI SAI RAIVI GOUD 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOM E (rG) ,High Court for 5n!'dc to SRl. T. BALAMoHAN REDDY, (SC-SPL PP FOR TG ACB) t"IJ"% to Ms. ALKA THAKUR' Advocate toPuc] IOUTI

3. cI elangana. & aiF ,lJ.fli To, 4 5. Two CD CoPies BM GJP * I I I I i I ! .l f I t HIGH COURT DATED:09/1 012025 ORDER WP.No.20337 of 2017 "tHE S ( L) * 0 5 l:i:8 2126 * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS dP s