The High Court · 2025

Petition under A(icle 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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in not registering the Crime basing on the Complaint dated 10.05.2017 lodged by the petitioners again it Respondent No. 4 to 6 and not conducting the investigation is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to section 154 of the Criminal procedure Code and consequently dirr:ct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to Register the Crime basing on complaint dated '10.05.2017 lodged by the petitioners and to conduct the investigation. t.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 47O22 OF 20171 Petition urrder Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent:; No. 2 and 3 to register the crime basing on the complaint dated 10.05.2017 lodtred by the petitioners against Respondent No.4 to 6 and to conduct the investigation pending disposal of the petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VENKAT REDDy KODUMURy (being not present) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6:-- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No oF 20td ORDER: 'l'his Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following rcliefls:- ". . .to issue a \X'rit or Order or Direction morc particularly one in thc narure of the Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 and 3 in not registering thc Crime basing on thc Ct>mplaint dated 10.05.2017 lodged by the petitioners against Respondcnt l.r-o. -1 to (r and not conductiltg the invcstigation is illegal, arbitran and contrar\ to section 154 of the. Criminal Procedurc (lodc and consequentlv rlircct thc llesponclcnts No- 2 and 3 to ReSistcr the (lnme basing c,tr cornplarnt dated 10.05.2017 lodgcd by.thc petitioners and to conduct the irx-cstigarion and pass... -,," ) None appcars on bchalI o[ the petitioners.

3. Ilcard lcarned Assistant Govcrnmcnt Pleadcr For I'Iomc appcaring [<rr respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

1. '['hc learncd Assistant Governmcnt Plcadcr f<rr I Iomc submits that thc relicf sought in the prescnt rvrit peridon-namclv, a dircction to thc police authoritics to register a criminal 6n5s-i5 n()t maintainable under Article 226 of the (lonstitution o[ India, in vicw of thc well-setdcd lcgal Position laid dorvn by the Hon'blc Suprcmc Oourt. l I har.e carcfully perused the matcrials placed on rccord. 'l -

6. 'fhe lyievance o[ the peritioners, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 10.05.2017, thc concerned police authorities failed to rcgister a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioners have invoked the writ iurisdiction of this Court under Aricle 22.6 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ o[ mandamus dirccting thc policc auth()rities to register a crimc.

7. The legal position govcrning mattcrs of this nature is well settlcd and no longer res integru. ln Sakii f/asu a. State of U.P' d2 Otben (A1R2008 SC 907), the t{on'ble Suprcme Court categodcally held that whcn the gricvancc pcrtains to the reflusal of the police to register a liirst [nformation Rep<>rt €IR), thc remedy o[ approaching the High (.ourt undcr Aricle 226 is ordinarily not available. '['hc Court cmphasized that the Codc of Criminal Procedur:c, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") providcs an adequate and efficacious statlrtory framcwork to address such grievances.

8. Tbis principlc has bcen consistendy reaffirmed in subsequent iudicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Sttbramaniam a- S. Janaki el: Otheru (AIR 2020 SC 387), r three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supremc Court clarified that the proper course for an l aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 (lr.P.C. rather rhan dircctly invoking thc writ jurisdiction o[ the IIigh (.r>urt.

9. In light of thesc sctded legal principles, and in thc absence <>f any exceptional clr cxtraordinary circumstances that would warrant intcrvcntion bv this Court under Aracle 226, the relief sought by, thc pcrit.ir.rncrs c2rnnot bc cntcrtained. 'Ihe statutory schcmc provides sufficient and efFtcacious remedies befcrrc the compctent Magistratc, and the pctitioncrs are at libcrry to pursuc such rcmedies in accordancc with law, should his #evance still subsist

10. ,\ccordingly, thc rvrit pctition is dismissed as n()t rnaintainablc. l'hcrc shall bc no order as to costs. Misccllaneous l)etitions, pending if any, shall stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// . P.C.SULEKHA D ISTANT REG R CTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, Advoc 2. fwo CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State Hyderabad [OUT] t UC] elangana, at

3. Two CD Copies TJ w HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 ORDER WP.No.37t357 of 2017 \"IE SIA 1?.0 L; I 3 At{ J 2t26 ,( n * DISMISSIhlc THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS (,, \rh b