✦ High Court of India · 13 Oct 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 13 Oct 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
13 Oct 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,308 words

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, m,) e particularly one in the nature ,of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction ir trot considering the complaint dated 08-08-2017 submitted to the respondents 'Jo. 2 & 3 for taking legal action against the respondents Nos. 4 to 11 al o providing Police Protection to the petitioner in person and his property to rn extent of Ac.2.24 gunts in R.S.No.88/3/2, Ac. 1.08 gunts in R.S. No. 881412 & t c.1 .2O gunts in R.S. No. 86/1 /A are situated in Agency arca at Vadlagudem /illage, Dammapeta Mandal, B. Kothagudem District, Telangana State is l:gal, brbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice as well as fund a nental rights under Article 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia as well z ; Cr. P.C 1973 and consequently direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to take act )n on the complaint Dt. 08-08-2017 of the petitioner by registering the crime ag I .st the respondents Nos. 4 to 1'1 . l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 48720 OF 2017) Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cr rrt may be pleased direct the respondents 2 & 3 to take action on the complaint tt.08-08-2017 of the petitioner by registering the crime against the respondents l'l s. 4 to 11 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.J.V.N. PUNDAREEK465IIt IDU Counsel for the Respondent No.'l to 3: ASST. GP FOR HOn4 : Counsel for the Respondent No.4 to 11 : - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.39285 ot 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief "...to rssue a writ, order or direction, more pariicularly one in the nature of Writ of lttandamus, to declare the inaction in not considering the complaint dated 08.08.2017 submitted to the respondenls No- 2 amp 3 for taking legal action against the respondents Nos. 4 to 1 1 also previding Police Protection to the petitioner in person and his propefty to an extent of Ac.2.24 gunts in R.S.No.88/3/2, Ac. 1.08 gunts in R.S. No. 88/4/2 ampAc.1.20 gunts in R.S. No. 86/1/4 are situated in Agency area at Vadlagudem Village, Dammapeta Mandal, B. Kothagudem District, Telangana Slale is iltegat, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice as well as fundamental rights under Adicle 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia as well as Cr. P.C. 1973 and consequently direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to take action on the complaint Dt 08.08.2017 of the petitioner by registering the crime against the respondents Nos. 4 to 1 1 and pass... . -"

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner

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

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 case is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( and to grant police protection. 2 !--\T1

5. I have perused the material placed on record

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence , is that despite having submitted a written complaint dated 08.08.20 I ' the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved ,'7 such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court under A r icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus d r :cting the police authorities to register a crime. .

7. The legal position on this issue is well settled il ll no longer res integra. ln Sakrn Vasu v. Stafe of U.P. & Others (AlF 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that whe e the grievance relates to refusal by the police to register a First trl ,rmation Report (FlR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the u it lurisdiction of the High Court. lnstead, the Code of Criminal : rrcedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficaciout; mechanism to address such grievances. The Court emphasized th; recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. before seeking intervention under Article 226.

8. This principle has been con$istently reaffirmed r later decisions Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Otho ; (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme )ourt reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in th,; r-.vent of police inaction, is to avail remedies provicied under the C; P.C, including i filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to register an FlR, or initiating proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. The Court clarified that bypassing these remedies and directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is impermissible, save in exceptional or extraordinary circu mstances. L ln light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any such exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Court finds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme under the Cr.P.C provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent lMagistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue those remedies in accordance with law should his grievance still persist

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions endin if an shall stand clo d SD/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT RE GISTRA //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI K.J.V.N. PUXDABE-EKAIISHUDU, Advocate tOpUCI 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the Siate of Gfairgana TOUTJ 3. Two CD Copies ifv- BN TJ HIGH COURT DATED:1311012025 ; ,u l: i,.1 t )(' , L rrB 2f26 i. - _ a\.*aL'_ .,-1 . r) \ * ORDER WP.No.39285 of 2017 C) ..) c., * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITTON AS NOT MAINTATNABLE WITHOUT COSTS KS zc,l,lze

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments