The High Court · 2025

8. MR. YAHIYA BIN ABDULLAH, Son of LATE ABDULLAH BIN ABOOD, Aged about 45 years, Occupation Business Rl/o H. No. 22-3-394, Magy-Ki Ewli Near Alaria Mulla Ra2vi, Etebar Chowk, Mandi Mir Alam, HYDERABAD - 500002. T.s.

9. MR. ABOOD BIN ABDULLAH, or ABDUL RAHMAN BIN ABDULLAH, Son of LATE ABDULLAH BIN ABOOD, Aged about 40 vears, Occupation Private Service, Fl/o H. No. 22-3-394, Mag-ar Ki Bowli Near Alawa Mulla Razvi, Etebar Chowk, Mandi Mir Alam, HYDERABAD - 500002. T.s. about 60 years, Occupation Business, Rl/o H. No. 22-3'315 ' 1St Floor, Magar ki Bowli, Mir Alam Mandi, Hyderabad - 500002.

10. MR. SAYEED BIN ABOOD, or AFSAR S/o Late Abood Bin Sultan, Age.d. 1 1. MR. SHOUKATH KHAN, S/b Late Momin Khan, Aged about 59 years' Occuoation Business, Fl/o Northern Portion of the Ground Floor, in the buildihg bearing premises No. 22-3-394/4, Magar Ki Bowli, Near Alawa Mulla Razvi, Etebar ehowk, Mandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad - T.S.,

12. MIR AHMED ALI ROASHAN, sio Not Knowh to the petitioner, Aged about 42 yeat's, Occ_ypation Business i Architect./ Document Wiiier, oiicdi{zf-i-410, Near City Civil Courts, purani Haveli, Hyderabad -r. ...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 issr"re a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the impugned ib action of the 1st to 6th Respondents herein viz., not considering and not disposing the Petitioner s Written Complaint dated- 27-10-2o1i', by not registering F.l.R., not investigating, not arresting and not prosecuting;, the 7th to 12th Respondents as per the law, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitut onal and thereby infringing and violating and depriving the petitioner from the erjoyment of her fundamental right to life, guaranteed Under Article 21 of [The] Cons;titution of lndia, and to direct the 1 to 6th Respondent herein, to consider ard allow the Petitioners Written Complaint dated - 2T-10-201T and initiate necessary legal action, viz., register an F.l.R., against the 7th to 12th Respondents herein, investigate the matter, arrest and prosecute them as per the law, in the irterest of justice. t.A. NO: 1 C)F 2017 . NO:50816 20171 Petiticn 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 pass an ihterim Order, directing the 1st to 6th Respondent to immediately, register an F.l.R., agairst the 7th to 12th Respondents herein, investigate the matter, arrest & prosecute them as per the law, in the interest of justice. Gounselfor the Petitioner: sRl s.MoHD ABDUL RAHEEM KHAN (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l TO 6: AGp FbR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO 12: - The Court rrade the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI 7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...fo,'ssue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned in action of the l"t b dh Respondents herein viz., not considering and not disposing the petitioner s Written Complaint dated 27-10-2017, by not registering F.l.R., not investigating, not anesting and not prosecuting, the lh to llh Respondenfs as per the law, as ittegil, arbitrary, unconstitutional and thereby infringing and violating and depriving the Petitioner from the enjoyment of her fundamental right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of lndia, and to direct l"t b dh Respondent herein, to consider and attow the petitioners Written Complaint dated 2T-10-2017 and initiate necessary legal action, viz., registei an F.l.R., against the 7' to 1/n Respondents herein, investigate the matter, arrest and prosecute them as per the law, in the interest of justice and pass....." 2 None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

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

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'bte Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record 2

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite having surbmitted a written complaint dated 27.10.2017, the concerned police au1:horities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petiti')ner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authoritie:s to register a crime.

7. The legal position on this issue is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakrn Vasu v. Sfafe of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that where the grievance relates to refusal by the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. lnstead, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious mechanism to address s;Uch grievances. The Court emphasized that recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. before seeking interventicrn under Article 226.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in later decisions. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), a tl"ree-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in the event of police inaction, is to avail remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including filing an acplication under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the ."- u! I I ! ,:. 3 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 circumstances.

9. 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 Magistrate, 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. - Irliscellaneous P-etitiqns. perutiruLlf aty,Shgl stglg q9!9-q, SD/. B. REKHA RANI REGISTRAR N OFFICER toPUCl Telangana, at //TRUE COPY/ To

1. One CC to SRI S.MOHD ABDUL RAHEEM 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court forthe Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies iif o HIGH COURT DATEE):06/1 012025 ORDEFT WP.No.40922 of 2017 t n 1r ( O 1 0 tE& u[26 I * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS crfr4 -tl w : 3\\ \ )A i' l I l: l, I I I I I I I ! :