Vijay Rana v. 'l . The State of Telangana

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 appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of ltrlandamus the inaction of the Respondent No.2 to 4 in not acting upon Petitioner complaint dated 1 3-10-2017 and 03-11-201 7 (Annexure-1 as 2) thereby not instituting enqu irylreg istering FIR against the respondent No.4 in violation to the provision of Sec 154 CRPC is arbitrary, illegal, and against the well settled law rendered by the Hon'ble Courts and apex court in Lalitha Ktrt rari vs. state of U.P reported in (2O14) 2 SCC 1. l.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:53356 QF 2017) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to register FIR against the unofficial respon: )nts and take action in pursuance to my complaint dated '13-10-2017 and O3-11-20 7. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SYED MOUNIS ABIDI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6 : - The Court made the following ORDER +* / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITI ON No .4303 4of 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: - ;;; "...fo issue a writ, order or direction' more pariicu-larly .;; i;-i; nature of Mandamus the inaction o.f the H"".rorJ"rt No.2 to 4 in not acting upon Petltigler 13'10-2017 ind 03-11'2017 ;:;i;;;i" driiirii*-r-- "" 2) therebv not , instituting- "X:;,:" I '"ii i,,v ii g i XZ ;";H:;: i :' l,l:^ :ff' Z:: ",t", violation to the Provtstor' "' against the wett seftted taw rendered bv' the ;i;;;;;: "re 'i-tt"- ,oui" and apex coud in Lalitha .Kumari vs' 'iiii" u-.p,"ported in (2014) 2 ScC 1 and pass""' "t i, g None appears on behalf of the petitioner' 2

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No'1 to 4'

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 lheConstitution of lndia' in view of the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court'

5. 6 I have perused the material placed on record' The grievance of the petitioner' in essence' is that desPite having submitted a written complaints dated 13'10'2017 and O3.11.2017,the concerned police authorities failed to register a case' Aggrieved by such inaction' the petitioner has approached this Court 2 \ under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia, se rking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register eL :rime.

7. The legal position on this issue is well settled ar d no longer res integra. ln Sakiri Vasu v. State of lJ.p. & Others (Aili 2OO8 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that whr: e the grievance relates to refusal by the police to register a First In-i rmation Report (FlR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the r,r,r t jurisdiction of the High Court. lnstead, the Code of Criminal t,ocedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious mechanism to address such grievances. The Court emphasized therl recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.p.C. cefore seeking intervention under Article 226.

8. This principle has been consistenfly reaffirmed irr later decisions. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Othe,-. (ArR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme ( ;ourt reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in the :vent of police inaction, is to avail remedies provided under the C'. ).C., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.p.C. for e iirection to the police to register an FlR, or initiating proceedings unJ :r Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. The Cour clarified that bypassing these remedies and direcfly invoking the w. jurisdiction of 3 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. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// Oclosed. SD/.M. NAGAMANI ISTANT REGISTRAR --7 CTION OFFICER To 1 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the StAte o Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI SYED MOUNIS ABlDl, Advocate [O 3. Two CD Copies PqQ L SA BS .C ] \ t iHE S (., o() a,), ( 21ll * ) rATC HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 ORDER WP.No.43034 of 2017 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. Lo?"J -9k'. 30 lil'a