Writ petition under Article 226 for non-registration of FIR dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner directed to pursue statutory remedies before Magistrate.
None. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. ¶¶54-¶55, ¶69
A writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable when the grievance pertains to non-registration of an FIR, as the Code of Criminal Procedure provides adequate and efficacious remedy. ¶¶42
13217 l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTENIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION NO: 14200 OF 2017
Between:
C.Maruti Venkat Ram, S/o C.V.S.Kameswararao, aged about 39 years, occ Private Employee r/o D.No. 12-2-8231C150, Flat No.Gl, 1st floor, Chagari Residency, SBI Colony, Sntoshnagar Mehdipatnam Hyderabad, presently r/o H.No. 24-149-3/2, East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the 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, to declare the inaction of the respondentpolice in taking action against the 4th respondent inspite of the complaint dt. 13-3-2017 and 30-3-2017, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to forthwith act upon the above said complaints and to take action in accordance with Law
t.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 176:13 OF 20J7)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,.the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 herein to forthwith register a criminal case
r*.; :s
against the 4th respondent pursuant to the compla,rt. dt. 13-32017 and 30-3-2017, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. ARUNACHALAM
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI R. LAXMIKAN'l H REDDY, AGP FOR HC,I IE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: --
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
ry
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 74 200 0F2017
ORD
This )7nt Petition s filedunderArticle 226 of C-onstirution of India seeking the followingreliefls:-
"... to issue an appropriate (rit,Order orDirectron,more panicularly one in the narureof Vrit of Mandamus,to declarethe inacdon of the respondentpolice in aking action against the 4th respondent in spite of the complarntdated l3-3-20U ar:- 30-3'2017, as'being iliegal, arbitraryand uniust and consequentlydirecr the .e.po.rd-errt Nos.2 and 3 hereinto fonhwith act upon the above said complaints and to takeaction in accordancewith taw, and to grant such other relief or reliefsas dris HonbleC-oun deems fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase....."
2 None appean on behalfof the petitioner.
Govemment Pleaderfor Home aPPearing for respondent Nos.
1to 3.
failed to register a Crime/FIRCorsequently, counsel prays for the
2
issuance of an appropriate direction to the superin -, ndent of porice or the officer concemed to ensure registration of th : case.
5 Learned fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home submits that filing of writ petition seeking a direction to rrgister a case, is not maintainable as per the settled lega.l position.
-,1rlf-f '::*:saqr "lv , ,/,
3
l I
i I I I jI I
Gouind Rajn Sami u. Sta/e of Te/angana, 2019 SCC Online TS 3491, reiterated that a petitioner mr.st exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suralsha Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the F[gh C-ourt.
a 9. This legal position has been further reinforced by three-judge Bench of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in
M. Subrananiam u. 5'. Janaki dz Others., AIR 2020 SC 387, wherein it was clarified that the appropriate remedy in such cases is to approach the Magistrate under the procedure contemplated in law, rather than directly invoking the writjurudiction.
4
pursue in accordance with law, should the cause of action still
subsist.
1i. Accordingiy, the writ petition $ disrr ssed as not
maintainable. There shall be no order as ro cosrs.
Miscellaneous Petirions, pending if any, shall :; and closed.
sd'.( .BHAVANI SWAMY Aqr; $TANT REGISTRAR '/ i . \
//TRUE COPY//
s\crror.r oFFrcER
To,
PMK
w
HIGH COURT
DATED:01 10912025
ORDER
WP.No.14200 of 2017
-- 1--: ::-.-,.-,
,. i r L .: r... u--. '," ...r., llt'i,.
1., - r<br>jr)'; :) i. l' t:i &t _, i
"l/
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITI.IOUT COSTS
G.+% w 4Tf,ar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for non-registration of FIR when alternative statutory remedies exist under the CrPC.¶¶41-¶42
The petitioner must exhaust statutory remedies available under the CrPC (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) before invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court.ratio¶¶47
Whether the petitioner has exhausted statutory remedies available under the CrPC before invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court.¶¶47
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & OthersFollowed¶¶42
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC 907 · Who else cites this
Gouind Rajn Sami v. State of TelanganaRelied on¶¶47
Gouind Rajn Sami v. State of Telangana, 2019 SCC Online TS 3491 · Who else cites this
M. Subrananiam v. S. Janaki & OthersRelied on¶¶48-¶49
M. Subrananiam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
How this case reached the court
inaction of respondent police in taking action against 4th respondent despite complaints dated 13-3-2017 and 30-3-2017¶¶15, ¶30, ¶35
Police authorities (Assistant Commissioner of Police and Station House Officer) · 13-3-2017 and 30-3-2017
Petitioner filed representations/complaints on 13.03.2017 and 30.03.2017; police failed to register FIR; petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226; also filed miscellaneous petition under Section 151 CPC (WPMP No. 17613 of 2017) for interim direction to register case.¶¶15, ¶17-¶19, ¶35-¶36
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad¶¶11, ¶21
SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY
The Assistant Commissioner of Police Opposite to GPO, Abids, Hyderabad¶¶12, ¶21
SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY
The Station House Officer Asifnagar Police Station, Hyderabad¶¶13, ¶21
SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY
Ch.Prakash, s/o Ch. Sankaram, aged about {0 years, r/o Housing Board Colony, Miryalaguda, Naigonda District¶¶13, ¶22
N.TUKARAMJIauthor¶¶5
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
