The High Court · 2025

2. The Superintehdent of Police, Warangat District, Warangal. 3. The Station House Officer, Eturunagaram Police Station, Warangal District. 4. Sri. Naresh Kumar, Sub-lnspector of Police, Eturunagaram Police Station, Warangal District.

5. Gandra Gopal Rao, S/o. Papa Rao, Aged about 66 years, Ocb Business, R/o. Behind Warangal Public School, Hunter Road, Subedarir, Hanamkonda, Warangal City.

6. Gara Anandl S/o. Chinni, Aged about 43 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. KoyagudemA/ellapur, Ramnagar Village, Eturnagaram Mandal, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) directing the respondent No. 1 to 4 to give police protection to the petitioners for maintaining their lawful possession over the suit lands admeasuring Ac. 10-00 Gts., in Sy.No. 26t2, situated at Koyaggdem / Yellapur presently known as Ramnagar Village, Eturunagaram lt/landal, Warangal District as per the injunction orders Dt. 14.8.2015 passed in 1.A.No. 128 of 2015 in 0.S.No. 55 of 2015 on the file of Hon'bte Junior Civil Judge Mulug, Warangal District in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sathyanarayana Tiwari vs. SHOPS-Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad reported in AIR- 1982 AP-Pagr:-392, and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in P.R. Muralidh.aran Vs. Swami Dharmananda Threetha Padar reported in (2006)4 SCC 501 b) tc, further grant order or direction as against the respondents 3 and 4 in not registering the complaint made by the 2nd petitioners Dl. 2.9.2016 by not registering the said complaint till today, by diluting and delaying the registration of FlR, thereby the respondents 3 and 4 are in gross breach of .the mandatory directions of tlre Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of UP reported in (2014) 2 SCC page -1 rendering the said respondents 3 and 4 liable for 'punishment, erction and contempt of court, for having flagrantly, deliberately shown scant regard to the directions of the Apex Court c) to consequentially direct the respondents 2 to 4 police to register the complaint dt.2.9.2016 given by the 2nd petitiorer and to complete the investigation as against the respondents 5 and 6 for having committed the cognizable offences under Chapter Xl, Sec. 447, 427 and 423 ol' IPC etc l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 39872 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil,:d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to render police protection to the petitioners pursuant to the: order Dt.14.8.2015 and subsequent extended orders, passed in l.A.No. 128 of 2015 in O.S.No. 55 of 2015 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Mulug; l(hammam District, pending disposal of the writ petition l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 4587 OF 20{61 Between: Gandra Gopal Rao, S/o. Papa Rao, Aged about 66 years, Occ Business, R/o. Behind Warangal Public School, Hunter Road, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal City. ....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. S/RESPONDENT No.S about 55 years, Occ House Wife,

1. Vennam Venkataramanamm?r Wo. late Nagabhushan' Reddy, Aged 2. Vennam Srikanth Reddy, S/o. late Nagabhushan Reddy, Aged about 32 yeqls,_Occ Private Job, Both are R/o. Flat No. 101, Vijaya Residency, HMT Colony, Near JNTU, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONERS/WRII PETITIONERS

3. The State of Telangana Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad

4. The Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, Warangalr 5. The Station House Officer, Eturunagaram Police Stqtion, Warangal 6. Sri. Naresh Kumar, Sub-lnspector of Police, Eturunagarard Police Station, District. Warangal District.

7. Gara Anand, S/o. Chinni, Aged about 43 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Koyagudem/Yellapur, Ramnagar Village, Eturnagaram Mandal, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS 1 IO4&6'RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mayi be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in WPMP No. 3987212016 in WP No. 3224012016 dated 26-09-2016 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI G. ANIKETH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5&6: SRI K. SANTHOSH RAVI IKUMAR FOR SRt K. PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "to ssue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of i\,landamus (a) directing lhe respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to give police prolection to the petitioners for maintaining their lawful possession over the suit lands admeasuring Ac.10.00 Gts in Sy. No. 26/2 situated at KoyagudemfYellapur presently known as Ramnagar Village Eturunagaram Mandal, warangal Oistrict as per the inrunction orders dated 14.08.2015 pas:;ed in l.A. No. .128 of 2015 in O.S. No. 55 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civi Judge, Mulugu, Warangal District in view of the law laid down by. the Divi';ion Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sathyanarayana Tiwari v. SHO, PS, Santhosh Nagar Hyderabad reported in AIR 1982 A.P. Page 392 and also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in P.R. Muralidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Threetha Padar reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501; (b) to further grart order or direction as against the respondents 3 and 4 in not registering the complaint made by the petitioner No.2 dated 02.09.2016 by not regi!;tering the said complaint till today, by diluting and delaying the regi.;tration of FlR, thereby the respondents 3 and 4 are in gross breach of the rnandatory directions of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govemment of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC page-1 rendering the said respondents 3 and 4 liable for punishment, action and contempt of Court for having flagrantly, deliberately shown scant regard to the directions of the Apex Court; (c) to consequentially direct the respondents 2 to 4/police to register the (omplaint dated 02.09.2016 given by the petitioner No.2 and to complete the investigation as against the respondents 5 and 6 for having committed the (,ognizable offences under Chapter Xl Sec 447, 427 and 423 of IPC etc. and :d) and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and prop,lr in the circumstances of the case."

2. None appeared for the petitioners. 2 NTR,J Wp_32240_2016

3. I have heard Mr.G. Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleacier for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. K.Santhosh Ravi Kumar, learned counsel representing the learned counselfor respondents 5 and 6.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home app€aring respondents/police would submit that the petitioners are seeklng police protection as per the interim injunction order, dated 14.0$.2015 in t.A.No.128 of 2015 in O.S.No.SS of 2015 pending proceedirpgs. This Court as an interim dated 26.09.2016 directed the police autflorities for police protection. However, the suit itself has been decreeO, in favour of the petitioners vide judgment dated 18.01 .2023. Thus the petitioners should avail appropriate remedy before the executing Court as the interim order is merged with final order. He further pleads that for non registration of crime basing on the complaint dated 02.09.2016 the petitioners should have availed appropriate remedies available under law and it is now well settled that without exhausting those remedies, the writ petition seeking a direction for registration of crirne is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.S fairly admits thAt the suit filed by the petitioners was favourably decreed and the petitioners may take appropriate steps before the Court concerned in execution if there \ \. 3 NTR,J wp_32240_2015 is any vi,rlation. However pleads that he is no way concerned with the police recort. I l'rave carefully perused the materials on record.

6. 7. Htrving regard to the fact that the temporary injunction was granted in the suit has been considered by this Court and the interim protection was granted by order dated 26.09.2016 and as the suit iEelf was adjudicated and decreed, the petitioners have to avail the remedies available before the executing Court if there is any violation by the unofficial respondents. Considering the facts, liberty is reserved to the prtitioners to avail appropriate remedy available before ttre executing Court for police protection if required. Further in respect of contention that police have failed to register a case on the basis of a complaint dated 02.09.2016 it is now well settled that if the petitioners are aggrie,/ed of non registration of crime by the police, basing on their repoG the petitioners are expected to avail adequate remedies \ available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this aspect, the issue of vrhether a writ petition is maintainable for issuance of a direction to register an FIR has been considered by the Honble Supreme Couft in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC

907. Follouring the dictum laid down therein, this Court in Govind Raju Sami v. St rte of Telangana, 2019 SCC Online TS 3491, clarified that a 4 NTR,] Wp_32240_2016 party seeking redressal of a grievance regarding non-registration of an FIR must first exhaust the arternative statutory remedies avairabre under the code of criminal procedure, lg73 (now replaced in part by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha sanhita, zoz3). Accordingly, a writ petition filed direcfly for such relief, without availing those relnedies, is not maintainable.

8. The aforesaid legal position has further been fortified by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble supreme court in M. sublamaniam v. s. Janaki & others, AIR 2020 sc 3g7. ln light of the setfled position of law, as there are no exceptional circumstances for considei.ation, the prayer to this extent is not maintainable. 9. Accordingry, giving liberty to the petitioners to hvall the appropriate remedies availabte under law, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand blosed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T.SRINIVASA REDDY / OFFICER Hyderabad District. To,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

8. BM PSK ,,, , e t ? 3 Jtll ?ffi t , z Ct I HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 ORDER WP.No.3224O ot 2016 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION wtTHou'n cosTs