Sri.G.Raghupathi, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Sri.G.Raghupathi, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the police to register a crime and extend police aid is maintainable without first exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. +1 more

Court's answer

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for seeking a direction to register a criminal case without first exhausting the statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or filing a private complaint under Section 156(3) before the jurisdictional Magistrate; in the absence of exceptional circumstances warranting interference, the petitioner's prayer for a direction to register a crime is not maintainable under Article 226.

Ratio / Principle

It was made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his grievance still survives.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Telangana High Court, N. Tukaramji, J., 04-11-2025) under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring illegal the police authorities' failure, despite written complaints dated 02-06-2015 to 21-09-2016, to register a crime and grant police aid to protect the petitioner's possession of a plot pursuant to a decree in A.S.No.9 of 2013 — DISMISSED as not maintainable. Relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (AIR 2008 SC 907) and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janoki (AIR 2020 SC 387), the Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for a direction to register a criminal case without exhausting statutory remedies under the CrPC 1973, viz. approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or filing a private complaint under Section 156(3) before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Liberty granted to pursue CrPC remedies; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

132171

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION NO: 33532 0F 2016

Between:

qli q.rRa,ghgpnqhi,_S/o.Late c.Jangaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business, FJo.13-11-141 12, Sahithi Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Sa:oorhagar, Ranga Reddy District.

...PETTTIONER AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

The Commissioner of Police, Puranahaveli, Hyderabad-50002.

The Assistant Commissioner of Police,^.Malakpet Division, Saidabad,

Hyderabad-5000036.

The Circle Inspector, Saidabad Police Station, Saidabad, Hyderabad5000059.

5, G.Rajender, S/o.G.Darshan, Aged about 38 years, Occ Business,

R/o.H.No.16-2-751 l91lA,Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad Hyderbad-5000059.

G.Darshan, S/o.Late G.Jangaiah, Aged about 65 years,'Occ Eusiness, R/o.H.No.16-2-751l91lA,Sai Ram Colony, Saidabad. Hyderbad-5000059.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the petitioner Written complaints dt.21-09-2016, 05-09-2016, 04-081 2016 and 02-06-2015 for grant of Police Aid to protect the petitioner and his possession of Plot bearing H.No.16-2-7511931N2111C, an extent of 208 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.47, situated at Sairam Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad pursuant to Decree and Judgment dt.0511- 2014 in A.S.No.9 ot 2013 passed by the Hon'ble ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as highly illegal, irregular and violation of Artictes 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to protect the petitioner and his possession and enjoyment over the plot

H.No.16- 2-751t93tN2t1lc,^{an extentof 208 Sq.Yds., in Sy No'47, situated at} sairam colony,^{saidabad, Hyderabadby preventing the Respondent Nos.5 and 6} from in any manner^{basrng on the petitionerwritten complaints dt.21-09-2016,05-} 09-2016, 04-08-2016^{and 02-06-2015.}

l.A. NO: I OF 2016 WPMP.^{NO:41413 0F 2016} I

Petition under Section¹⁵¹ CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affrdavit filedⁱⁿ support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} direct the Respondent^{Nos.2 to 4 to givenecessary policeaid to protectthe} petitioner and his possession and enjoyment over the^{plot H.No.16-2-} 751tg3lN2l1tC, an extent^{of 208 Sq.Yds., in Sy.Nd.47,situatedat Sairam Colony'} Saidabad, Hyderabad^pursuant to^{Decreeand Judgmentdt.05-1 t-2014in} A.S.No.9 of 2013^passed by the^{Hon'ble ll AdditionalChief Judge,City Civil} Court, Hyderabad by^{preventing RespondentNos.s and 6 from in anymanner} interfering therewith,^pending disposal^{of the writ petition.}

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{P.V.RAGHU RAM (NOT PRESENT)} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.'lTO 4: SRID.PRADEEP'AGP FOR HOME} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.S & 6:} -

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE I{ONOT'RABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUIIARAMJI}

WRIT PEf,ITIOIT^{No.33s32 ()F 2016}

ORDER:

This Writ Petition^{is filed underkncle 226 of Coirstitution of} ,

India seeking^{the following relief:}

'...to issue an^{appropriatewrit,order or direction'morein the nature} of writ of Marrdarnus^{declaring the action of t}IeRespondentNos2 to} 4 on the^{petitionerwrittencompl'aintsdt'21-09-2016'05-09-2016'} O4-O8-2Ofa and^{02-06-2015for grantof Police Aid to protect the} petitioner and his^{possessionof Plotbearing H No'16-2-} zSt /gl/ t/Z/t/C, an^{extentof 208 Sq'Yds', in Sy'No'47' situatedat} Sairam Cotony,^{Saidabad, Hyderabad,pursuarttoDecreeand} .rudgment dt.oi-^{11- 2014 in A.S.No.gof 2oL3passedbyt}te Hont'le II} Add"itional Chief^{Judge,City Civil Cout,Hyderabad as highly illegal'} irregular and^{violation of ArticlesL4 and' 2lof Constitutionof India} anJ consequently^{direct t}rc RespondentNos'2to 4 to protect the} petitioner and his^{possessionand enjojrme-ntover theplot H'No'16- 2-} ,St lglle/ZlttC,^an edent^{of 2O8 Sq'Yds', in Sy'No'47' situatedat} Sarram Colony,^{Saidabad, Hyderabadby preventingtl1e Respondent} Nos.s and 6 ftom^{hany flrarurcr basing on thepetitioner written} complaints^{dt-21-Og-2}16,05-09-2016, O4-O8-2016arld02-06-2015} aIId to^pass..."

2 None appeared on^{behalfof the petitioner'}

3- Heard Mr. D.Pradeep,^{learned Assistant Government Pleader for} Home appearing^{for respondentNos.1to 4'}

Learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader for Home submits'} on instructions,^{that no crime has been registeredon the written} representations submitted^{by tlre petitioner, as the subject} matter pertains to^{a purely civil dispute'It is further submitted} thatnodirectionhasbeenissuedeit}rerbythecompetentcivil court or by the higher^{polic€ authorities for extending police aid}

2

in this regard. Hence, the^{petitioner ought} to^{havq availed the} appropriate civil remedies^available under^{law rather tlmn} invoking the extraordinary^jurisdiction of this Coud^under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have perused the material^placed on record.

The petitioner contends that despite submitting^written complaints, the respondent^police authorities failed to^registera crime or extend police^protection, ttrereby^{neglectingtJreir} statutory duty. Thus, the^{grievance of the petitioner,} in^essence, pertains to the non registration of a crirninal case based on his complaints.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Saktri^Va.su u. State^{of U.P.} & OtLers, AIR 2OO8 SC 907, and reaflirmed tn M. Subramaniam u. S. Janoki & Others, AtR 2O2O SC 387, has categorically held that a writ petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitution of India} is not maintainable for seeking directions to^register a crirninal case without hrst exhausting the statutory^{remediesavailable} under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^{(Cr.P.C.), namely,} by approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or by Iiling a private complaint under Section 156(3) before the^{jurisdictional} Magistrate. v '-'

3

In light of the settled legal^{position and in the absenceof} any exceptional circumstances^{warrantinginterference, this} Court is of the considered^{view that the prayer of tJre petitioner} for a direction to^{registera crirne is not maintainable under} Arttcle 226 of the^{Constitutionof India.}

g. However, it is made clear that^{tJre petidoneris at libertyto} avail appropriate^{remediesas providedunder tlle Code of} Criminal Procedure,^{1973, if his grievance still survives'}

Accordingly, the^{Writ Petition isdismissedasnot} rhaintainable. There shall^{be no order as to costs.}

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending if any, shall stand closed'}

SO/.M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER To 1 One CC to SRI P.V RAGHU RAM, Advocate loPU 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the Sta Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 Two CD Copies PSK, BS '8,

HIGH COURT

DATED:04t1112025

ORDER

WP.No.33532 of 2016

'tHES
oo 7z
r$ i.rri ffi
t *
I

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT COSTS 6 JKq 3l'l.-c '