The High Court · 2025

1 Jhe rep by its Principal Secretary to the Home Department. Secretariat 2. The Superintendent of Police, Peddapalli District, Peddapalli. 3. The Station House Officer, Godavarikhani ll Town police Station, _ Godavarikhani Proper and Mandal, Peddapalli District (Karimnagar District)_ 4- IVd. Yakub, S/o. Hussain, Age Major, Occ Business, Fl/o.8th lncline Colony, 5. Thota Srinivas, S/o. Mallaiah, Age lr/ajor, Occ Business, Rt/o. Btn lncline - Colony, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District (Karimnagar district). 6. Gasiganti Lingamurthy, S/o. Odelu, Age lVlajor, Occ Businejs, Rt/o.8th lncline _ Colony, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District (Karimnagar district). 7. Gasiganti Ramesh, S/o. not known to the petitioner, Age Major, Oic Govt. Teacher, Rl/o. 8th lncline Colony, Ramagundam tVlandal, Peddapalli District (Karimnagar district). Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District (Karimnagar 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent no.3 in not taking any action basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner, dated 16-2-2017, against the respondents no.4 to 7 even though the contents of the complaint clearly constitutes the cognizable and non-bailable offences, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 2'l of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequenlly, direct the respondent no.3 to register the FIR basing on a comp z int submitted by the petitioner, dated '16-2-20'1 7 and take necessary action aga rst the respondents no.4 to 7 in accordance with Law l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 43875 OF 2017 Petition under Sr:ction 151 CPC praying that in the ci1 umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the respondent no.3 to take necessary action against tre respondents no.4 to 7 basing on a complaint filed by the petitioner, dated '16-2., 017 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI M. SRINIVAS, i\ ]P FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4to7: - The Court made the following: ORDER "FI*z THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.35320 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Aflicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: ".-.fo lssue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in not taking any action basing on a comptaint filed by the petitioner dated 1 6-2-201 7, agalnst the the contents of the complaint respondent Nos.4 to 7 even .though clearly constitutes the cognizable and non-bailable offences, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Arlicles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, direct the respondent No. 3 to register the FIR basing on a complaint submitted by the petitioner dated 16-2-2017 and take necessary action against the respondent Nos.4 to 7 in accordance with Law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Couft may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Ms. lsha [\4ehra, learned counsel, representing Mr. K Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and [/r. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 'l to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent No. 3 failed to take any action pursuant to the petitioner's representation 2 NlR./r lY P. No. )5 )2a a,; !0/ t dated 16.02.2017, the present writ petition has r -'en filed seeking appropriate directions from this Court

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Horr -= submits that the report submitted by the petitioner was duly received a- i examined by the authorities. Upon such examination, it was found thzrl the issues raised therein were purely civil in nature. Accordingly, the petit ( ner was advised to pursue appropriate remedies available under civil law, rnd the report was closed. Therefore. the contention of the petitioner no cnger survives for adjudication

5. I have perused the material placed on record

6. The explanation offered by the respondents/polic< authorities clearly demonstrates that they acted upon the representatio r submitted by the petitioner. lf the petitioner is aggrieved by any action or i taction on the part of the Police in the matter of registration or investigatiorr rf a complaint, the appropriate course of action available to him lies with r the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, '1973 ("Cr.p.C."). lt is row a well-settled principle of law that, without first exhausting the efflr acious alternative statutory remedies available under law, invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constilt tion of lndia is not maintainable. This legal position has been categorica I y affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe of tJttar oradesh & Olhers 3 Ntx,/ ll .l'. Na. )i)2U ol'2017 (AlR 2008 SC 907) and l/1. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AtR 2020 sc 387).

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the settled legal position, this court finds that the presenl writ petition is not maintainable in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedies as are available to him in law, if the cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. K. BHAVANI SW A SISTANT REG R //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. K. VENUI/ADHAV, Advocate tOpUCl 2. TwoCCs to GP FOR HOME,High'Courtioild" SLtd of Tetangana at 3. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUTI BM PVL ( HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 ORDER WP.No.35320 of 2017 .\ 0 4 tlc 20[ i; J l') i. --_ \'2\. \- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITI-I)UT COSTS ?p

1.\ Ir1