High Court · 2025

2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 3; A.P. State Commissioner for SCs and STs, Represented by Officer on Special ! Duty, M{, Housing Board Complex, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad 4. The District Collector and Magistrate, Khammam District, Khammam 5. The Superintendent of Police, Khammam, - .6.. Smt. B. Vatsala, D/o Reddappa, Aged about 51 years, residing at Kalakada Village, Chittoor District presently Residing at Ramayapalli, H M Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS a Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitutioh of lndia praytng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned inaction.of the respondents in registering the complaint made by the petitioner which is forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Khammani on 31 .10.2014 till date as arbitrary, illegal, capricious, high handed and is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia apart form being in violation of the Statutory provisions of Protection of Atrocities on Schedule Castes Act, 1989 (POA Act of 1989) and the Guidelines laid down b), the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of tndia in Lalitha Kum,ari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others in W.p. (Criminal) No. 6g of 2008 dated 12-11.2013 reported apart from being in violation of the principtes of natural justit;e and fair play and consequently direct the respondents to register the case ancl proceed with investigation expeditiously under law. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit t'iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take immediate steps to take action against the Respondent No.6 by cons.idering the representation of the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI T.S.ANAND counsel for the Respondents No.ltoS : ASST.GP FoR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.6 : -_ The Court merde the following: ORDER a 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUIGRAMJI ORDER: This Nrrit Petition is Frled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "...Issue a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned inaction of the respondents in registering the complaint made by the petitioner_ which is forwarded to the Sop.riritendent of Poli.., Khammam on 31.10.2014 till date as ,I:bitrrary, illegal, capricious, high handed and is in violation of the fundamenal rigt ts g"aranie.d to the fetitioner under Article 14 aod 2l of the Constinrti"=" "ilndia apart form being in violation of the^Statutory provisions of Protection of Atrocities on Schedule castes Act, 1989 (PoA h.t of 1989) and the Guidelines laid down by the Constitutio_n_ Bench of the Honourable Supreme court of India in Lalitha Kumari vs State of uttar Pradesh anil others in !7.P. (Cfiminal) No. 68 of 2008 dated 72.11.2013 reported apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice: and fair play and consequendy direct the respondents to register the case and proceed with invcstigation expeditiously under law and to pass......"

3. None appears on behalf of the petitioner' Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for.respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home a submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the police authorities to registef criminal s25s-15 ^ not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in I :i: rf,f ,f{! $&,i' '?lc: :.Ii :l 2 view ol'the well-setded legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5- I have carefully perused the materials placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioners, in substance, is that despite having'written complaint dated 31.10.2014, the concerned police authorites failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitiont:r has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position governing maters of this nature is well setded a'rd no longer res integra. rn Sakiri. Vasu a. State 0f U.p. dy others (AIR 2008 sc 907), the Hon'ble supreme court categorically held that when the grievance perains to the refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of a approaching the High Court under Arricle 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal I t.a. I t 3 procedur e, !973 ('Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances'

8. This principle has been consistendy reaffirmed in subsequent iudiciat pronowlcements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam u- s' Jaruaki dy Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the pioper course for an aggrieved purty is to avail the remedies provided under the cr'P.c-, including approaching th. Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. ruth':- than directly invoking the writ iurisdiction of the High Court. g. In light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extfaordinary circumstances that would w^ffant intervention by this Court under Articte .226, the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme the relief sought by provides sufficient and efficacious remed"ies before the competent i Magistrate, and the petitionef is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist' \ \ 4

10. Ar:cordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not m tntarrrable. There shall be no order as to costs' Misceilaneous Petitions, pending rf any, shall stand closed. To, /ITRUE COPY// SD/.A.JAYASREE REGISTRAR OFFICER

1. One Crl to SRI T.S.ANAND, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

3. Two CD Copies. BSK NT - ----ctl6;#.* a HIGH COURT DATED:09/1 012025 THE S (J 3 i rr ii 'll'th * ORDER WP.No.39450 of 2017 ISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION D WITHOT'T COSTS a Ar ,^\\r'