Petitioner sought a mandamus directing police to register a crime on his complaint alleging police inaction. The Court held such relief is not maintainable under Article 226, citing Supreme Court precedent requiring recourse to Cr.P.C. remedies, and dismissed the writ petition with liberty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
13217 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTHDAY OFNOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION : 16090 OF 2018
Between
Manish Kumar Jha, S/o. Late Siva Narayan Jha Aged about 34Years,Occ. Asst Controller Sulabh lnternational Social ServiceOrganizationHyderabad. Rl/o. H. No. 3-6-69/8/16C, Avanthi Nagar, Basheerbagh,,rd"t1.Ofei,r,Oa
AND
Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Courtmay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction moreparticularly onein the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inactionof the 3rd respondent in not registering the crime inpursuance tothe petitioners complaintdated 16.04.2018, and the same was received on21.04.2018is illegal, arbitrary' contrary to theprovisions of Criminal ProcedureCode.
lA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to register a criminalcase againstthem1) ManishKumar Singh, Care Taker Sulabh Complexnear Old RTC Bus Stand Sircilla T.S 2) Mukesh Kumar Chowdary, Care Taker,Sulabh Complexnear Old BusStand Sircilla T.S. 3) Raman KumarTakur Care Taker,Sulabh Complexnear
Vimulawada Sircilla T.S as per the complaint of the petitioner dated 16.04.201 8 pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD GULAM RAS OOL (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D.PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUI(ARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.16O9O of 2O18
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following reliet
o...to issue an appropriate utril order or direction more particularlg one in tlrc nature of WRIT OF
MANDAMUS declaing the inadion of the 3d respondent in not registering tle crime in pursuarrce to the petitioners complaint dated 16.O4.2O18, and tLrc same utas receiued on 21.04.2018 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the prouisions of Cimirnl Procedure Code and pa^ss...'
r
2
governi:ng such matters is well settledand no longer res integra. In Sakiri vasu u. state oflJttar Pradesh & ot?wrs (AIR 2OO8 SC 907];, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt categoricallyheld that where the grievance pertains to refusalby the police to register a First Informzttion Report (FIR), the appropriateremed.yis to avail adequate and efficacious statutory remediesavailable therein availabte under the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.O.") to address such grievances beforeseeking constitutional intervention.
J
g Accordingly, reservingthe liberty of the petitionerto seek revival of thepresent writ petitionif the cause of action still survives, thiswrit petitionis dismissedas not maintainable' There shall beno order as to costs'
MiscellaneousPetitions, pending ifany, shall stand
closed.
To
s D/' AH M'=B fol'r'hLtirT HtH ,' I9 //TRUE COPY// sEcTtoN oFFICER
<sup>f{-
HIGH COURT
DATED:1711112025
ORDER
WP.No.16090 of 2018
TTIE S T4
( 6
s'
oto tl 7 utq :n7$ z
t
I
c
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS
r"e y*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to direct police to register a case on the petitioner's complaint despite statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & othersRelied on¶6
AIR 2008 SC 907 · Who else cites this
M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & OthersRelied on¶7
AIR 2020 SC 3871 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Manish Kumar Jha
The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City
The Station House Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Station, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
