Kallepalli Thulisamma v. The State of Telangana

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 3rd respondent police in not registering the crime against the unofficial respondents No.4 to 7 in connection with causes S.C., S.T atrocities, and trespassed the petitioner land and damaged the l'louse No.3-98 and making illegal constructions in s.No.23tAN1 an extent of 0.57 cents, of relagavaram village, penuballi Mandal, Khammam District in spite of the r:omplainant is illegal and void and opposed to Article 14, 1g,21 and 300-A of constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the 3'd respondent police to provide poli,:e protection to the petitioner land by registering crime against the respondent 4 trr 7. .A. NO: 1OF it017 MP. NO:4 1 0F 2017 Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass orders directing the 3'd Respondent to registering crime against the Respondents No. 4 to 7 and provide police protection to the petitioner land vide House No. 3-gg in S.No.23lAA,'1 an extent of 0.57 cents, of Telagavaram village, penuballi Mandal, Khamrlam District pending disposal of the above Writ petition. counse! for thr.' Petitioner: SRt KoNDApALLt syAM SUNDER (Nor PRESENT) Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 to 3: AGp FOR HOME Counsel for ther Respondent Nos.4 to 7: - The Court mad,e the following: ORDER I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.40065 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3d respondent police in not registering the crime against the unofficial respondents No. 4 to 7 in connection with causes S.C., S.T atrocities, and trespassed the petitioner land and damaged the House No. 3-98 and making illegal constmcrions in S.No.23/AA/1 n extent of 0.57 cenrs, of Telagavaram village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District in spite of the complainant is illegal and void and opposed to Article 14, 19,21 and 300-A of Constirution of India and consequently to direct the 3d respondent Police to provide police protection to the petitioner land by registering crime against the respondent 4 to 7 and to pass......"

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned i\ssistant Government Pleader for Homc appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

4. T'he learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relicfl soq]hr in the present writ petition-namely, a direction to the policc authorities to register a criminal case-is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the well-setded legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2

5. I have carefully perused the materials placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having ryritten complaint dated 06.10.2015, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article .226 of the Constirution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to registcr a crime.

7. The legal position govcrning mamcrs of this narure is well settled and no longer res integra. h Sakiri L/asu u. State of U.P. dz Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Suprcmc Court categorically held that when the gricvance pcrrains to thc rcfusal of the police to register a. First Inflormation lteport (IrIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasizcd thar the Code of Criminat Procedute,'1.973 ('Cr.P.C.") provides an adequatc and efficacious statutory framework to addrcss such grievanccs.

8. This principle has bcen consistendy reaffirmcd in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most norably, in i,I. Subramaniam ,. ,S?- Janaki dz Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a thrce-Judgc Bench of the J Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved parq is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than direcdy invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Hrgh Court.

9. In light oF these setded legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court undcr Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot . bc entcrtained. The stztutory scheme provides suFficient and efficacious rcmcdies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist.

10. Accordingl1,, the writ pctition is dismissed as not munttinable. There shall bc no ordcr as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. \ To //TRUE COPY'/ SD'. M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI KONDAPALLI SYAM SUNDER, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

3. Two CD Copies MP PSK% f I : l i I HIGH COURT DATED:09/1 012025 tI HE SIA I 3 ?1 IAtl 2[6 t Z f) ...i l. ORDER WP.No.40065 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS I o