S. Srilatha v. The State of Telangana

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 the Nature of Writ of tMandamus declaring the action of the respondents in particular respondent No. 5, in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 2811112025 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No. 5 to consider the representation dated 28.11:2025 as prescribed in the landmark judgment of Lalitha Kumari Vs State of U.P by the Honorable Apex court in the i I I lA NO: 1 OF 202s 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. 5, to take cognizance of the petitioners complaint dated 2811112025 and receipt of acknowledgment issued by respondent No. 5, vide No. RCK/IMGRZ-RCHKD10112.25103263 dated 01112t2025 and to register an FIR by following the guidelines al recommended.in the landmark judgment of Lalitha Kumari Vs State of U.P by the Honorable Apex court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIKH CHAND AHMED counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: SRr R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.37350 0F 2025 DATE : 05.12.2025 Between S.Sri Latha AND The State of Telangana & Others Petitioner ...Respondents ORDER This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...r.ssue a wit or direction more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in particular respondent No. 5, in not considering the petitioners representation dated 28fi112025 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No. 5 to consider the representation dated 28-11-2025 as prescribed in the landmark judgment of Lalitha Kumari Vs State of U.P by the Honorable Apex court in the interest of justice 2 Heard Mr.Shiak Chand Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 4. I 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2025 has not been duly considered by the respondents/police authorities for registration of a criminal case against the unofficial respondents. He further submits that, as per his instructions, the concerned police authorities have, in fact, considered the representation but observed that the issue involved is civil in nature and accordingly closed the matter. He contends that the dispute is essentially of a commercial nature and places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Larita Kumai v. Sfafe of u.P. l(2014) 2 scc 11. He atso preads that though he is aware of the procedure contemplated under the Co.de of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("cr.P.c.") / Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 (.BNSS"), the process of approaching the rearned Magistrate is time-consuming; hence, he has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction to register a case. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home submits that, as per his instructions, the petitioner's representation has been duly considered by the concerried police authorities and, upon prelini'inary examination, it was closed on the ground that the dispute involved is \ civil in nature. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his \ 3 representation was not considered is unfounded. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner's grievance is that his representation has not been registered as a criminal case. The explanation offered by the respondents/police authorities indicates that, upon examination, they decided not to register a case as the matter was found to be civil in nature. lt is now well settled that where a petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of a case, the proper course is to avail the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS. Without exhausting such efficacious alternative l i remedies, filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the.Constitution of lndia seeking a direction for registration of a case simpliciter is not I maintainable. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakm Vasu v. Sfafe of U.P. & Others [AlR 2OO8 SC 907] and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki& Ofhers [AlR 2O2O SC 3871. Furthermore, the contention that approaching the Magistrate woutd be a time-consuming process cannot be accepted as an exceptional ground for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. I 4

7. Having regard to the factual position and considering that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the learned Magistrate concerned, in accordance with law, if the cause of action still survives, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/.C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G Telangana. Medchal Malkajgiri District. SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary Home department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of 2. The Commissiolel of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Malkajgiri, 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, t\Iedchal-Malkajgiri district. 4. The Assistant commissioner of Police, Medchal-Malkblgiri district. 5. The Station House officer, PS Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri district 6. One CC to SRI SHAIKH CHAND AHMED, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two ccs to G.! FoR HOME, High court for the State- of rerangana at 8. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] : To, BSR HIGH COURT DATED:05/1 212025 -ii{E JIr, .r4: 12 ril mm J i \ ORDER WP.No.37350 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 8 & l?(