tVohd.Jafar Quadri v. The State of Telangana

Petitioh uh-der"Articli,e 226 of th'e ConStltuti on of-lR-dia 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 Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the action of the respondents No.3 in not action on the petitioners complaint dt.16-03-2017 and not providing police protection to protect the petitioners possession over his property bearing H.No.10-195, on Plot Nos.33/'1 and 3312, in Sy.No.203, -Admeasur:ing 200 Sq.yardS-:bt-.eqUivalent to 167.22 Sq tVleters,,having"-btIil area 100 sq. Feet With A.C.C.Sheets, Situated at Sunrise Nagar, Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, from interference by the respondents l\o.4 to 6, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and c,lnsequentially direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to provide police protection to lhee petitioner to protect his possession over his aforesaid property, from interference by the respondents No.4 to 6. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017 P. NO: 13572OF 20171 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mby be pleased to Direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to consider. the Petitioner's *Complaint dated.16-03-i1017 by providing police protection to the petitioner, to protect his possession over his aforesaid property, from interference by the Respondents No.4 to 6, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUDDU VIJAI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, ASST. GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 6: - - - - The Court merde the following: ORDER ...!.a::1 :/': ,I , I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER: This \X/rit Petition is filed under Anicle 226 of C-orstitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "... to issue a writ, onder or direction more particularly one in the narure of ril7rit of ldandamus or any other appropriate tVrit, declaring the action of the respondents No.3 in'not action on the petitioners complaint dt.16-03- 2Ol7 and not providing police protection to protect the petitionen possession over his propeq, bearing HNo.10-195, on Plot No.s33lt and 33/2, in Sy.No.203, AdmeCIuring 200 Sq.yrands or equivalent:rc 167.22 Sq IlGters, having built-up area 100 sq. Feet With ACCSheets, Situated at Sunrise Nagar, Balapur Village, Saroomagar lvlandal, Rangareddy District, from interference by the respondenr No.4 to 6, as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of nanral justice and coruequentially direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to provide police protection to thee petitioner to pretect his possession over liis aforesaid property', frcm interference bythe respondents No.4 to 6, and maypass..... ."

2. ' None appea$ on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard }&.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, learned fusistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. Lto3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, purcuant to the representation dated L6.03.2017, the police failed to register a Crime/FIR Consequently, counsel prap for the issuance of an /

2. .,I r appropriat,: direction to the Superintendent of Police or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

5. Leanred Assistant Government Pleader for Flome submits that filing of writ petition seeking a direction to register a case, is not maintainable as per the setded legal position.

6. I have penrsed the materials on recor,C.

7. The essence of the petitioner's grievance is that the concerned police authorities failed to register a case based on their representat;ion dared L6.03 .2017. C-ons equently the petitioner s eeks a direction from dris C-ourt under Anicle 226 of the C-onstitution of India to compel the police to register a crime.

7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme C-ourt n Sakii Va:u u. Sun of tJ.I>. dz Orbers, AIR 2OO8 SC 9T7,has laid down thar a writ petition urder Anicle 226 s ordinarily not maintainable when the grievance pertairu to the non-registration of an FI& inasmuch as the C-ode of Criminal Procedure (GPg provides an adequate and efficaciots remedy. Following rhis principle, this C,ourt, in \ J Gouind RSu sani u. state of relangana,2019 SCC Online TS 3491, reiter:ated that a petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the F[gh Coun. t t

8. This legal position has been further reinforced by a three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme C.oun in M. Subramaniam u. S. Janaki dy Otheff, AIR 2020 SC 387, wherein it was clarified that the appropriate remedy in such cases is ro approach the l4agisuate under the procedure conremplated i, lroo, rather than directlyinvoking the writ jurisdiction.

9. In view of the settled legal position, the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Corutitution of India cannot be entertained, particularly in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances demonstrated in the writ petition. The scheme of law provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the comperenr lMagistrate, which the petitioner is at liberry to ',1' A# -.4 4 pu6ue in accordance with law, should the cause of action still subsist.

10. Accc,rdingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no Ioroer as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if *y, shall stand closed. sD/-M. tr*o* ALr BArc ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Qne CO to SRI MUqDU V|JA|, Advocate [OpUC] 2. Two cc)s to GP FoR HOME, High court fbr the State:oT Telangana. tourl 3. Two C[r Copies BN BS HIGH COURT DATED:r) 1lOgl2025 \. \ 1HE S ( iJ .t t\ * 0 5 ',IAR 2026 z t ORDER WP.No.10934 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU COSTS U