The issue raised in the presenr v. it petition is no longer res integra.In Sakii Vasu u. St,lte

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 38399 OF 2016 Between: B.Kamala, Wo. Late Dharma Reddy, age 55 years, Occ : House Wife, R/o. 8-14012' Sivanarayanapuram, Badangpet, Hyderabad. .....PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, rep Uy its Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat Buildings. Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy, District, State of Telangana

3. The Statron House Officer, Meerpet Police, Station,Ranga Reddy District, State of Telangana. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a wflt order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not registering the crime basing on the report made by the petitioner herein on 14.07.2O16 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to the verdict passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also abuse of power of police consequentially direct the 3rd respondent to register a cnme basing on the report made by the petitioner dated- 14.07.2016 forthwith by taking suitable action against the accused by following the procedure contemplated under crrminal Law as well as under the verdict passed by the Apex Court. I.A.N O:1 OF 2016 {wPMP.NO:47311 OF 2016) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci 1 umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou t may be pleased to direct the 3'd respondent to register a crime basing on the report made by the petitioner dated 14-7 -2016 forthwith by taking suitable action against the accused by following the procedure contemplated under criminal Lavr as well as under the verdict passed by the Apex Court, pending disposal of the alrr ve writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRt R.LAXMIKANTH REDD'/ AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER I + + *, *, + * + + THE HONOURABLE SRI TUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRITPETITION N0.38399 0F 20T6 D This Vrit Petition is filed under Article 226 o{ Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- "...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3d re.spondent in not registertng the crime basing on the report made by the petitioner herein on 14.07.2016 as illegat, arbitrary and also oppose to the verdict passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also abuse of power of potice, consequentially direcr the 3'd respondent to register a crime basing on the report made by the petitioner dated 14. 07. 2016 forthwith by taking suitable action against the accused by following the procedure contemplated under Criminal Law as well as under the verdict passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and pass such other order or orders...." 2. I have heard Mr.V.Sai Kumar, leamed coursel for petitioner as well as Mr.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Leamed counsel for the peritioner submis that, owing to the acts allegedly committed by the unknown persons, the petitioner submimed a representarion dated 14.07.2016. As the said representation was neither considered nor aded upon by the respondenrs, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directio ns. 2 4 In response, the leamed Assistant Govemrr:nt Pleader for Ftrome contends that the subshnce of the p€t tioner's praytr amounts to a request for registration of a criminal < ase Pu$uant to his representation dated 14.07.2016- It is, howev:', a well-settled pri".rpL of law that a writ petition under Ar,.i :le 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained solely br the pqpose of seeking a direction to register a crime, q,it[ out exhausting effective and adequate statutoryremedies available r nder law.

5. I have perused the materia-ls on record.

6. The petitionefs grievance is that the c:rcemed police authorities failed to register a case pursuant to hi representation dated 14.07.2016. The issue raised in the presenr v. it petition is no longer res integra.In Sakii Vasu u. St,lte 0f u.P and 1 thers (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Crrun categorically reld that where the police tail to register a complaint, the complair; nt has adequate remedies underthe Code of Cnminal Procedure, 1)'l (G.P.C).

7. In such situation, t}e proper cou6e is to frr t approach the Superintendent of Police under Secrion 154(l Cr.P.C, and \ 3 thercafter, if necessary, to move the jurisdictiond Ivfagistrate under Section 156(3) G.P.C Similar procedural safeguards have now been incoryorated in the Bharati,a Nagaik Suraksba Sanhitba (for short, "BNSS"). \

8. This legal position has been consistendy reaffirmed. t In M. Subrananiam u. S. Janaki (AIR 2020 SC 387), the Ftron'ble Supreme C-ourt once again clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed solelyfor tlre purpose of seekin$ registration of an FIR, is not maintainable in viewof the efficacious shtutory remedies available. Following the sarne principle, this C-ourt, rn (,ouind Ralu Sani u. State of Telangana Q0l9 SC Online TS 3491), held that such writ petitions are not maintainable without fint exhausting the altemative remedies provided under law.

9. In light of these semled principles, the present petition is held to be not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competent court, in accordance with law. + I & il. 6 f,to 4

10. Wfuh this observation, this petition is dismi-.s:d. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall r;r and closed. \ To //TRUE COPY// -SD/-C. OEEPIKA ASs \srfNr REGISTRAR / ',l\;,-'''- '.-- - $rflo* oFFrcER -1

1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State rr Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI V.SAI KUMAR, Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CD Copies SA BS 6 L *. I t' I I' t, t' l' i,, ! t I I + ; e { q f{i I HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 ? () '2. o+ t4t o 0n l, zt[t * D is. c .., i ORDER WP.No.38399 of 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. u