High Court · 2025

'1 1.Mohd Faisal Rahman Khan, S/o. Mohd lqbal Ahmed Khan, Aged about 35 years, Occ Labour, Rl/o. H.No.10-4-77112191A, Sriram Nagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

12.Nusrat Sultana, Wio. Late Mohd Waheed Jani, Aged about 59 years, Occ Household, Rl/o. H. No. 1 1 -2 -522, Habeeb Nagar, Nampal ly, Hyderabad. - l3.Shameem Sultana, W/o. Syed Mohsin, Aged about 41 years, Occ Household, Fl/o. H,No.18-8-589/30, KumarWadi, L.C.H. Colony, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad.

14. Farheen Sultana, W/o. Shaik Himayatullah, Aged about 33 years, Occ Household, Rl/o. H.No.',l0-1-858, Flat No.403, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. l5.Shaheen Sultana, W/o. Mohd Fazlul Haq, Aged about 38 years, Occ Household, Rio. H.No.3-7-400/MR/64, Hyder Enclave, Hyderguda, Rajenderanagar, K..V. Rangareddy, T.S. l6.Parveen Sultana, W/o. Mohammed Asad Ullah Khan Rahel, Aged about 36 years, Occ Household, RJo. H.No.12-1-547lB, Syed All Guda, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

17. Mohammed Kaleem, S/o. Mohammed lqbal, Aged about 32 years, Occ Labour, R/o. H.No.11-3-609, Padmashali Nagar, Sangham Lane, New Ashok Nagar, Secunderabad.

18. Shainaaz, W/o. ltrlohammed Ghouse, Aged about 27 years, Occ Household, R/o. H.No.12-11-6291145, Warsiguda, Near Nethaji High School, L.R. Nagar, Secunderabad.

19. Mohammed lsmail, S/o. Mohammed lqbal, Aged about 39 years, Occ Labour, Rt/o. H.No.11-3-609, New Ashok Nagar, Parsigutta, Secunderabad.

20. Reshma Sultana, D/o. lVlohammed lqbal, Aged about 33 years, Occ Household, Ryo. H.No.11-3-609, Pargisutta, New Ashok Nagar, Secunderabad.

21. Mohammed Saleem, S/o. Mohammed lqbal, Aged about 43 years, Occ Labour, Rl/o. H.No.11-3-354/16, Shabazguda, SR Hospital, Warsiguda, Secunderabad.

22. Aqeela Unissa, W/o. Mohammed Saleem, Aged about 37 years, Occ Household, R/o. H.No.11-3-354/16, Shabaz Guda, Near S.R. Hospital, Musheerabad, Secunderabad.

23. Mohd Hafeez Uddin, S/o. Mohd Waheed Uddin, Aged about 39 years, Occ Labour, RL/o. H.No.9-4-77 I 41136, Hakeempet, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

24.Sajida Begum, W/o. Mohammed Hafeez Uddin, Aged about 33 years, Occ Housewife, Fl/o. H.No.9-4-771N136, Hakeempet, Toll Chowki, Golconda, Hyderabad, T.S.

25.Tahmina Sultana, W/o. lrilohammed Jamal Uddin, Aged about 40 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. H. No.9-4-136/136, Seven Tombs Road, Quli Qutub Shah Nagar Colony. Golconda, Hyderabad, T-S.

26. Mohammed Jamal Uddin, S/o. I\/ohammed Waheed Uddin, Aged about 46 years, Occ Labour. Fl/o. H.No.9-4-77161225, Toll Chowki, Sana Hotel, Hakeempet, Golconda, Hyderabad, T.S. 2T.Mohammed Jameel Ahmed, S/o. Mohammed Jaleel Ahmed, Aged about 34 years, Occ Labour, R/o. H.No.3-3-85, Khaja Bowli, Nalgonda.

28. Shaik Himayatullah, S/o. Late Shaik Abdulla, Aged about 36 years, Occ Employee in Police Dept, R/o. H.No.10-1-858, Flat No.403, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004.

29.Mohammed Asad Ullah Khan Rahel, S/o. Late Mohd Raheem Khan, Aged about 40 years, Occ Private Service, R/o. H.No.12-1-54718, Syed All Guda, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 028, T.S. 30 Mohd Fazlul Haq, Sio. Late Mohd Abdul Haq, Aged about 42 years, Occ Business, Rt/o H.No 3-7-400/fUR/64, Hyder Enclave, Hyderguda,'Rajendera Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachi Bowli, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The Station House District. Officer, Abdullapurmet Police Station, Ranga Reddy

4. Mohd Rashad, S/o. Mohd Rasheed, Aged about 38 years, Occ Business, Opp Ramoji Film City tvlain Gate, Abdullapurmet Gadda, Abdullapurmet Village, Abdullapurmet [t4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Ranga Jangamaiah, S/o. Ranga Swamy, Aged about 45 years, Occ Business, Opp Ramoji Film City lt4ain Gate, Abdullapurmet Gadda, Abdullapurmet Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6. Mandula Rajalingam, S/o. Not known to Petitioners, Aged about 42 yearc, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.5-160, Plot No.l4 and 15, Opp Ramoji Film City Main Gate, Abdullapurmet Gadda, Abdullapurmet Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Sridhar Hotel and Lodging, Rep by its Manager, aged about 44 years, Occ Business, R/o. Opp Ramoji Film City Main Gate, Abdullapurmet Gadda, Abdullapurmet Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8- B.R.R. Residency, Rep by its Owner, aged about 40 years, Occ Business, R/o. Opp Ramoji Film City Main Gate, Abdutlapurmet Gadda, Abdullapurmet Village, Abdullapurmet [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District ...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 bq pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent police in not taking any action agarnst the respondent Nos.4 to 8 pursuant to the complaint dt.24-10-2017, inspite of the repeated visit made by the petitioners, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent police to forthwith act upon the complaint d|.24-10-2017 and to take action against the respondent Nos.4 to B in accordance with Law. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 53124OF 20171 Petition 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 direct the Respondent No.3 herein to forthwith register the Criminal case against the Respondent Nos.4 to B pursuant to the Complaint d1.24.10.201 7, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. I Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SHAIK JILANI (Nor PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent No.'l to 3: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the f<illowing: ORDER I I I THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.42836 ot 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...1o issue a writ, order or direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent police in not taking any action against the respondent Nos.4 to B pursuant to the complaint dt.24.10-2017, inspite of the repeated visit made by the petitioners, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent police to fofthwith act upon the complaint dt.24.10.2017 and to take action against the respondent Nos.4 fo B in accordance with Law.- . .."

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioners.

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 Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioners, in essence, is that despite having submitted a written complaint dated 24.10.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaetiolf, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of tba -' ) \ Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime. 7- The legal position on this issue is well settled and no longer res integra. ln Sakrn Vasu v. State 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 such grievances. The Court emphasized that recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. before seeking intervention 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 three-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 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 circumstances.

9. ln light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any such exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Cou( 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 petitioners are 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 closed. i I To, //TRUE COPY//

1. One CC to SRI SHAIK J|LANl, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Fwo CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for th Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies D/-K.BHAVANI SW ISTANT RE R SECTION OFFICER tate of Telangana at BSR GJP NT HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012025 ORDER WP.No.42836 of 2017 STA i) O ?BJAN2 t?6 ./.. t',i * c :.. .. , ..- '. DlSMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT.MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS ) @ tJ{ \ t,i\.r 2-L