High Court · 2025

Smt. S.Rebecca Padmaja, W/o S.K.Paul Rpobert, aged about 44 years, Occu House wife FJo H.No.1-1-524lB/1 , Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,, Home Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad. z 3 The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad., The Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station,, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station,, Hyderabad. 4 5. Sri Y.Pola Chinna Naganna, aged about 50 years, Occu Call money finance, Plot No. 95/1, Yerukala Nancharamma Nagar, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District,

6. Smt Vanam Manjula, Wo Mysaiah, aged 35 years, Occu Call money Finance, Plot No.95/2, Erukala Nancharamma Nagar, Mansoorabad, L.B-Nagar, Ranga Reddy bistrict, Hyderabad.

7. Smt.Pochamma, W/o Ashok, aged about 45 years, Occu Call money finance, Ryo H.No.6-65, Opp. Court Complex, Gajwel, Siddipet District.

8. Smt.Vanam Padma, Wo Vamshi, aged about 35 years, Occu Call money finance, Plot No.95/9, Erukala Nancharamma Nagar, Mansoorabad,L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 9- Smt.Venkatamma, W/o Shankar, aged about 50 years, Occu Call money Finance, Plot No.95/6, Erukala Nancharamma Nagar, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 1O. Smt.Shankaramma, W/o Nagesh, aged about 40 years, Occu Call money Finance, Plot No.95/6, Erukala Nancharamma Nagar, Mansoorabad, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 1 1 . Smt.Durgamma, W/o Venkanna aged about 60 years, Occu Call money finance, Near Court Complex, H.No.7-97, Medak. l

12.Smt.Putta Subbalaxmi @ Laxmi, W/o Gopal, aged about 55 years,Occu Call money Finance, Plot No.95i6, Ring Basthi, Jagadgirigufta, Hyderabad '13. Smt.Latha @ Suneetha, aged about 50 years, Occu Call money Finance,H.No.3-76, Boiguda Kamaan,Old City, Hyderabad.

14. The Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...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 lssue a writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent, i.e., the Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad to register petitioners complaint dated 18-05-2017 as F-l.R. as per the directions of this Honble Court reported in Mohd. Shahabuddin vs. State of Telengana -2016 (1) ALD (Crl) 532 and take appropriate action against sth to 13th respondents who are running call money lending business or 50% interest per 15/30 days with out any money lending License in the interests of justice. 10F 2A17 MP. NO: 45800 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 2nd respondent to provide protection to the Petitioner f rom the respondents pending disposal of the main W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.YUVRAJ Counsel for the Respondents No.lto4 : ASST. GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.5to14 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N,TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.36887 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief ".. .Io lssue a writ, order or directbn, more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing tle 4th respondent i.e, the station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad to register petitioner's complaint dated 18.05.201 7 as F/R as per the directions of this Court repofted in Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Telangana: 2016 (1) ALD (Crt ) 532 and take appropriate action against the dh to 13"' respondents who are running call money lending bus,ness @ 5O%o interest per 15/3O days without any money lending license in the interests of justice,.. ..."

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal €se, not maintainable under Anicb 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. I have carefully perused ttte materials placed on record. 2

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 1g.05.2017, the concerned police authorities faired to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and in Saklrl Vasu v State of u p & Others (AlR 2OO8 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Arlicle 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminat procedure, 1gZ3 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

8. This principle has been consistenfly reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Olhers (AlR 2020 SC 3g7), a three_ Judge Bench of the Hon,ble Supreme Court clarified that the _-Proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies -) provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than directly inrrcking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

9. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed / To, //TRUE COPY// )--} SD/- M.NAGAMA TANT RE ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRt B.yUVRAJ, Advocate. tOpUCl 2. fwo CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the State 3. Two CD Copies. Telangana. [OUT] I BSK BSR PrrG. HIGH COUR]' DATED:0811012025 i: ilE S I 3 zBJAIzoz$ t I v. ORDER WP.No.36887 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS fm{r tsv\*'