Gandamalla Saidulu v. consequently to direct the

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tre High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents .No.2 to 4 to register the crime against the Respondents No. 5 to 12, and take necessary action as per law, basrng on the report of the petitioner, Dated 20-06-2018, forthwith, pending disposat of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CHENNAKESAVULU KOTTE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to8:-- The Court made the following: ORDER ,.4.' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUK.ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No .35E70 0F 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Nlicle 226 of Constitution of seeking the following relief/s:- ". .to issue a writ order or direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. by declaring the action of 4rh respondent in not regrstering the crime against the Respondents No. 5 to 9, baslng on the repot of the petitioner Dated 20-06-2018 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural juslice and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondent Nos 2 to 4 to register the crime against the Respondents No. 5 to I and take necessary action as per law, basing on the repot of the petitioner, dated 20-06-20'! 8 and pass . "

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assrstant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that upon receipt of the petitioner's representation dated 20 06.2018' the concerned police conducted a preliminary enquiry to verify the veracity of the allegations and found them to be false. Consequently, the petitioner's representation was closed. lt is further submitted that the result of the enquiry was communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 30.09.2018. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the ) respondent police authoritres failed to act upon his representatron is baseless. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. lhave perused the material available on record

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos 5 to g failed to act upon his representation dated 20.06.2018 by registering a crime. However, the explanation offered by the respondent police authorities indicates that, upon receipt of the petitroner's representation, an enquiry was conducted and, upon finding the allegations to be false, the representation was closed. The petitioner was duly informed of the same through a communicatron dated 30.09.2018. lt is thus evident that the respondent police authorities have acted upon the petitioner's representation and exercised their discretion rn closing the matter after a preliminary enquiry. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that his representation was not consrdered is unfounded.

7. lf the petitioner is still aggrieved by the alleged non-registration of a crime, the proper course would be to avail the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C ") or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS').

8. lt is now well settled that, without exhausting the efficacious -.. statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C. or BNSS, seeking a Qirection under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia for registration of a v i I I I r 1 l I I l crime simpliciter is not maintainable. This legal position has been authoritatively afflrmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in Sakrrr Vasu v. SIaIe of tJ.P & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907) and M- Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387)

9. ln view of the settled legal position, and since the petrtioner has not availed the remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rellef sought by the petitioner is not maintainable. However, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available under law, if the cause of action still suryives, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any' shall stand closed RI M. JAWAHAR REDOY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad [OUT]

1. OneCCto SRI CHENNAKESAVULUKOTTE'Advocate[OPUC] -, ;. iffi ;6tL-Gi Fdn nor',le ,Hish court for the state of relansana at 3. Two CD Copies BM.<4\s HIGH COURT DATED:2011112025 ORDER WP.No.35870 of 2018 HT c T4s t \)* c BA ?a ?6 i't,j n. ti * { I t- ! I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (aP"eA lM w' a'\z\ra