1. Kataram Rekha v. The State of Telangana

7, Srinivas, s/o not known to the petitioners S.l. of Police, L.B.Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad.

8. Kasi Reddy, s/o not known to the petitroners C.l. of Police, L.B.Nagar Police Station, 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein in not taking any action against the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 for f indulging in illegal acts of coming to the house of the petitioners and threatening to implicate them in false criminal cases and thereby harassing them in body and mind and causing interference with their personal life and liberty, inspite of the written complaint dt.30-9-2016, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitution al and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein to take immediate action against the Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in accordance with law. l.A. NO:1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 43611 OF 2016) 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 to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein to restrain the Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 from visiting the house of the petitioners and interfere with their personal life and liberty in any manner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEMPATI MALLIKARJUN SHASTRY(NONE APPEARED) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8:--- The Court made the following: ORDER t ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 35387 OF 2016 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief ".,.lo rssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more padicularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaing the action of the Respondent Nos- 1 lo 5 herein in not taking any action against the Respondent Nos. 6 to I for indulging in illegal acts of coming to the house of the petitioners and threatening to implicate them in false criminal cases and thereby harassing them in body and mind and causing interference with their personal life and libefty, in spite of the I wriften complaint dt. 30.9.2016, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondenl Nos. 7 lo 5 herein to take immediate action against the Responde,nt Nos. 6 fo 8 in accordance with law, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Coufi deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

2. None appeared for the petitioners

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case-is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2 N7&/ W.P. No. )5)87 of 2016

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record

5. The grievance of the petitioners, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 30 09.2016, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the pelitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 ol the Constitutron of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a cnme 6 The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakrn Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 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 Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 'l 973 ("Cr.P.C ") (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), 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 ./ / t' J NrR,/ IV.P. No. )5)87 ol201 6 under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. 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 petitioners cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioners are at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should their grievance still subsist. I I I

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri Vempati Mallikarjun Shastry, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] N. TJiDL

3. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1 110912025 ORDER WP.No.35387 of 2016 ,.:n {rlE STA I I L) 2 B JAll 2O2E t ::.1, P:i... 1' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b 4 I v u)