I /r v. Srinivas Raju, S/o vs Pochaiah Aged about

'l . State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department, 2. The Commissioner of Police. Hyderabad City at Basheerbagh Hyderabad 3. The Station House Officer, tMir Chowk Police Station Hyderabad 4. I\/r. V. Srinivas Raju, S/o V. Pochaiah Aged about 45 years, Occupation r/o Plot No. 4, H.No. '10-156/6 Venkateshwara Colony, Gayatri Nagar Jillelguda, HYderabad 5oo 097 ...RESP.NDENTS 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 a writ, order or directron more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not taking action against the 4th respondent is highly illegal, improper, arbitrary, u nco nstitutiona I against the principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondent No. 3 to register an FIR based on petitioners complaint dated- 26.1 1.2017 , carryout investigation and arrest the 4th respondent forthwith. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 51647 OF 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 SHO, [\rlirchowk Police Station, Hyderabad to register an FIR based on the complaint daled: 26.11.2017 lodged by the petitioner against the respondent No.4, investigate the matter pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MR PRABHAKAR RAO VOF:l IGANTI (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.41631 of 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: ".. -lo rssue a writ, order or direction, more pariicularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not taking action against the 4th respondent is highly illegal, improper, arbitrary, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register an FIR based on petitioners complaint dated 26.11.2017, carryout investigation and arrest the 4th respondent forlhwith....."

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 lhe 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 petitioner, in essence, is that despite having submitted a written complaint dated 26.11.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, .a' . the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the I l I 2 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 setfled z nd no longer res integra ln SakrTr Vasu v. Stafe of u.P. & Others (A ll 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that wlrr re the grievance relates to refusal by the police to register a First ln ormation Report (FlR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the I rit jurisdiction of the High Court. lnstead, the Code of Criminal I rocedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficaciou; mechanism to address such grievances. The Court emphasized th; t recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.O before seeking intervention under Article 226.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed i r later decisions. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Othe s (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supremer Court reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in the event of police inaction, is to avail remedies provided under the O.p.C., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for i direction to the police to register an FlR, or initiating proceedings ur jer Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. The Cou 1 clarified that bypassing these remedies and directly invoking ths r^, -it jurisdiction of 3 the High Court is impermissible, save in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

9. In 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 Nlagistrate, 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 closed , .-/' To //TRUE COPY// SD/. B. REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER iat, Hyderabad, State of

1. The Principal Secretary Home Department, S Telangana- The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City at Basheerbagh Hyderabad The Station House Officer, Ivlir Chowk Police Station Hyderabad one cc to sRl t\,1R PRABHAKAR RAO VORUGANTI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies 2 4 5 6 PSK, GJP Z{ HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 ORDER WP.No.41631 of 2017 lTHES (: ) o T 1 6 ,Jl18 2U[ 2 * * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tr16"