Mohd. Afzal v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the ( rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr ry be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to extend necessary protection to the p ,titioner by adhering to the decree and judgment dt.6-05-2016 passed in O.S.No.6( ) of 2015 on the file of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 53682 OF 2017) Between: Mohd. Afzal, S/o: Occ: Tailor, Rl/ o H Secunderabad. Late Mohd. Abdul Kareem, 61ed about 62 years, . No.1 2-1 1 -831 / 7, Eshwarib Li Nagar, Warasiguda, ...PEI TIONERYPETITIONER AND 1 2 ? 4 5 b The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secreta r Secretariat, Hyderabad. , Home Department, The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, at Bastrr erbagh, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer,, Chilkalguda Police Statiorr. Hyderabad. ...RESPONt) :NTS/RESPONDENTS Aslam S/o. Wahab, aged about 36 years, Rt/o. Old P<x Chilakalguda, Secunderabad t Office Lane, R4 is impleaded as per C.O. dt.4-+17 in WPMP 51ti 19 0f 16 Sayed Ghouse, S/o: Syaed Mahboob Ali, aged about ! Known to the Petitioner, R/o H.No.12-1 1-876, Warasirl Komraiah, S/oi not Known to the petitioner Rl/: H.No.'12 Secunderabad. 3 years, Occ: no! rda, Secunderabad. 11-876, Warasiguda, ...proposed lmpleading Re ;pondents No.5 and 6 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cc r rt may be pleased to implead the proposed respondent as respondent No.5 8 i in W.P.No.287'16 of 20 16 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SAI KRISHNA MOHAN I .AO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI R. I-AXMIKAI TH REDDY, The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FOR HOME ':. I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT WRITPET ITION No.287 t6 oF 2016 ORDER: This writ Petition is filed under Article 226 0f constitution of India seeking the lollowing relief/s:- "...!t, issrre tn appropriale Writ, order or direclion more patliarlarly one in thc ,utrrre ul ll', it <,1 Marulinus declaring the action of the j'd respondenl in not extcnliry ,lru. nnrorrnry protection to the petitioner and nol registering ony case ogainst the 'n,,rrnn, nn^"rl in the reporl datid t4.07'2016 i' respect ol the house beoring no l2 't'tl llil,.lt: ,t,lmeasrring 100 Sq., Yards in Survey No 168 situdted at Wu,tsigulo Station' Tamistanpur' Secuderobod os orbitt ttt iuu. Lrrui,inn Osmanio '- iiJi,,t ,,r,1 contr.try to law in ihe inleresl of iuslice and to pass such other ord( or ordtrs tts this Iktn ble Courl deems ft and Proper in lhe circumslances of the cds( '" -Railway

2. None appears for the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Govemtnent Pleacler tbr [ lome appearing for respondent Nos' l to 3'

4. l.eamccl Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home subrnits that no FIR hasbeertregiSteredonthebasisofthepetitioner,scomplaintdatedl4.(}7.2()16. However. it is contended that the petitioner is not without rernedy and ought to have approachetl the jurisdictional Magistrate by initiating appropriatc proceedirtgs as conternplated under law' He further points out that tlre issuc of non-regisl.ration ol'a crime and the inaction of the police in that regartl has been rcpeatedly cotrsidered by this Court in light of the settled legal position' which rurakes it clear that a writ petition filed solely for a direction to registcr a crirue is not nlaintaillablt: 2

6. I have carefully perused the rnaterial available on lt :ord. The relief sought by the petitioner is a directiorr to'the Station House Offrcer, Chilkalguda Police Station, to register a case anc ake action against the persons narned in his representation dated 14.07.2016. fhe grievance of the petitioner is, thercfore, that the police authorities failed to :egister a case despite his cornplaint. The contention raised is no longer res inlz. 'ra, as the law on this issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Suprerne Court as rr 'll as this Court.

7. In this context, it is relevant to note that the Horr rle Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State ol U.P. & Others. AIR 2008 SC 907, :ategorically heldthat a writ petilion under Anicle 126 is ordinarily not rr lintainable when the grievance pertains to non-r'cgistlation of an FIR, since he Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (norv substantiallr,- rcplaced by the Bharc iya Nagarik Suralesha Sanhita. 202J, whcrcver applicablc) provides an ad,: guate and efficacious statutory renredy. l hc Court ernPhasized that such gli :vances must first be addressed by resorting to thc rerncdies cxpressly providec in the Code

8. This logal position has hecn turther reinforced b1 three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Suprcnre Court in il[. SulramaniaLz v. S'. . anaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC lll7. rvhcrcin it uas clarified that the proper l rurse for an aggrieved party in cascs of' non-registratiorr of a crirne is to aptr rach the jurisdictional Magistrate undcr thc proccdurc contenrplated. in la,r rather than directly I invoking writ jurr scliction 3

9. In view of the above seftled legal principles, the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constihrtion of India cannot be'entertained, particularly in the absence of any exceptional or €xtraordinary circumstances shown in the writ petition. In consequence, the pr€sent writ petition is held to be not maintainable. However, tiberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate rernedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if the cause of action still survives, itr accordance with law. t0. With the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed as not rnaintainable. There shall be no order as lo costs Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- T.SREENIVAS REDD Y SISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To 1 One CC to Sri K. Sai Krishna Mohan Rao, Adwcate 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at PUC] Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies TJ TKS NT HIGH COURT DATED:2510812025 ORDER WP.No.28716 of 2016 \l i-riJfi+): (J 6tB21?fi J- ,-),,r * r'{) .,...-.. i\Y. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETTTION AS IIOT MAINTA]NABLE WITHOUT COSTS ^$ 2n\t!