Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of UP and ors and' consequently direct the

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewlth, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent potice in not entertaining and registering the FIR against the 4th respondent as mentioned in the complaint of the petitioner dated 11.11.2017 even though the respondent received the complaint is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the law and procedure as contemplated under the Act and in violation of the guidelines of the Apex Court Judgment i.e.; Lalitha Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP and ors and' consequently direct the respondent police to register the FIR in accordance with procedure. l.A. NO: 1OF 2O1 P. NO: 53970 OF 20171 Petitiorr 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 police particularly 3rd respondent police to register the crime basing on the complaint dated 11.11.2017 filed by the petitioner against the 4th respondent as, per the procedure of law, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for tlre Petitioner: SRI D.BALA SRINMSA RAO Counse! for the Respondent Nos.l TO 3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.43542 ot 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...fo r.ssue a writ, order or direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respndent police in not enteftaining and registering the FIR against the 4th respondent as mentioned in the complaint of the petitioner dated 11.11.2017 even though the respondent received the complaint is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the law and procedure as contemplated under the Act and in violation of the guidelines of the Apex Court Judgment i.e., Lalitha Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP and ors and consequently direct the respondent police to register the FIR in accordance with procedure...."

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

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

4. The leamed 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 petitioner, in essence, is that despite having submitted a wriften complaint dated 11.1'1.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inactioe,-- 2 the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the 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 Sakiri Vasu v. Sfafe of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 902), the Hon'bl,: 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 pr()per 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 lhese remedies and directly invoking the writ 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 Arlicle 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 her 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. TI SD'- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,ffRUE COPY" N OFFICER 1 One CC to SRI D.BALA SRI NIVASA RAO, Advocate 2 HOME, High Court for the State of Telanga na, at Two CCs to GP FOR Hyderabad. IOUTI Two CD CoPies To

3. PSK. PSK Ptta I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , i I 1 HIGH COURT DATED:06/1 012025 , ORDER WP.No.43542 of 2011 \ \. 1 HE SDt ci:': \ c-) r.) ,. : l'! * 2 7 ttB 21j/ti t I,./ * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ I zplil >6