Bhutharaju Atchamma v. 1. 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 issu"e a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the inaction of the respondents 2 lo 4 in registering the F.l.R against the respondents 5 to 7 and recovering the Rythu Bandhu Scheme amount of Rs. 51,900/., pattadar pass books. 3 tulas of gold and other documents is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Cr.P.C. and violation of Artictes 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to provide protection to the petitioners from the hands of the respondents 5 to 7 by recovering the Rythu Bandhu Scheme amount of Rs. 51,900/-, pattadar pass books, 3 tulas of gold and other documents lA NO: 1 OF 201! Petition under Section 1'51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respc,ndents 2 to 4 herein to provide protection to the petitioner from the hands of the respondents 5 to 7 by recovering the Rythu Bandhu Scheme amount of Rs. 51,900/ pattadar pass books, 3 tulas of gold and other documents pending dispos;al of the main Writ petition counsel for ther Petitioner: sRl. GANESWARA RAo NTDUMUKKALA counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to4z sRl D. PRADEEP, AGp FoR HOME Counselfor the Respondent Nos. 5to7:-- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI WRIT PETITIoN No.37359 OF 2018 ORDER: This writ Petition is liled with the following relief: "...to issuc a Writ order or direction trtore- particttlarll'one irr tlrc nattu'e ot' \\RIl OIj l\'1,\NDAivltrS tt'r declarc the inaction ol the t'esptltldetlts 2 to 4 in rcgisterittg tlre [:.['R against tlte respottclettts 5 ltl I attd rc-c()\'erillg the I{1'thu Bandhu Scltentc artrount of I(s. 5 1.900i-. pattadar pass books. .'i ttrlas ol strld atrd othcr dtlcutttcttts is illcgal. arbitrary-. attd cotttrat-! to the Cr'.P.Cl. arlcl vitllation of Afticlcs I I of the ('orlstittrtion ol' India and conscquently clirect tlter respottclcnts to provide prtltection to tlre petitiorrers lionr the hands of th'e respcrndents 5 to by recovelirtr.l tlte l{ltlrtr Barttlhtr Scltetttc allloullt ol'Rs' 5 1.900/-. pattadar pass books. i ttrlas ol' gold and other clocurttcrtts attcl pass. . . "

2. Heard Mr. Ganesh\,tara Rao NidUmukkala, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite the petitioner having submitted a representation dated 02.1O'2018, the respondent police authorities failed to register a First Information Report (FIR) in accordance with law. Accordingly, learned. counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent potice authorities or the officer concerned to ensure registration of a case based on the said representation' i I l i I n I I 2 NTR, wP_37359_2018

4. Learrred Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other han<I, submits that upon examination of the petitioner's representation dated 02.lO.2OlB, it was found that the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature. Consequently, the petitioner was advised to avail appropriate civil remedies before the competent forum. It is therefore contended that the allegationsi regarding non-registration of the crime and alleged inaction on the part of the police authorities are factually unfoundecl and legally untenable. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the action or inaction of the police authorities, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies providect under the code of criminal Procedure, lgr3. Therefore contends that the relief sought in the present writ petition, rramely, issuance of a direction under Article 226 of tk.e Constitutjon of tndia compelling the police to register a criminal case, is nrtt maintainable.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submission of a written complaint dated 02.lo.2oLB, the S._?ncerrrerl police authorities failed to register a case. I i i i J NTR, J wP_373s9-2018

7. The action taken by the police authorities as reported by the learned Assistant government Pleader for Home is indicating that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and the police have exercised their jurisdictional discretion in registering the crime. Hou,ever, if the petitioner is still aggrieved' heoughttohaveavailedappropriateremediesavailableunder

8.Thelegalpositiongoverningsuchmattersiswellsettled.In sakiri vasu u. state of u.P. & others (AIR 2008 SC 9071, the Hon,lrle Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the failure of the police to register a First [nformationReport(FIR),theappropriateremedyisnottoinvoke thewritjurisdictionoftheHighCourtunderArticle226.The CourtemphasizedthattheCodeofCriminalProcedure,l9T3 (..Cr.P.C.,,) provides an ad.equate and efficacious statutory mechanism for redressal of such grievances' \ g.Thisprinciplehasbeenconsistentlyreaffirmedbythe Hon,bleSupremeCourtinsubsequentjudgments.Notab|y,inM. Subrqmaniamu.S.Janaki&Others(AIR2o2oSC387),athree- JudgeBenchreiteratedthatanaggrieved.partymustavailthe r --3lltutoryremediesprovidedundertheCr.P.C.,including 4 NTR, wP_37359_2018 approaching the Magistrate under sections 1s6(3) or 2oo, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High court.

10. In view of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting interferen,:e by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the cr.p.C.l Bharatiya Nagarik suraksha sanhita, 2023 provides sufficient and efficacious remedies 'cefore the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance '*rith la,*,, if his grieyance still survlves.

11.. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty, this r,r,rit petitiop is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to To, Mis<:ellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shalt stand closed ]/ffRUE COPY// K. BHAVANI SWAMY ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFTCER

1. one c(l to sRt. GANESWARA RAo NIDUMUKI(ALA, Advocate topucl 2. Two ccs to Gp FoR HOME High court ioi in" strt" of retangana, at - _ Eyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies , ! B M /DAN w :' l'- l:. t t o() ( t lHE S tl 7 Uiiil 2tl?6 * rr:H HIGH COLIRT DATED i2611112025 ORDER WP.No.37'359 of 2018 DISMISSfiNG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G "rPkA 5#'