Dismissed

Thota Srinivas, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Oct 2025WP/37857/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the inaction of police authorities in registering a complaint against certain respondents. The High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, relying on Supreme Court precedents which hold that CrPC provisions provide adequate remedies against refusal to register a case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable with no order as to costs.

Thota Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 37857 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thota Srinivas, S/o. T.Mogili, Aged 34^yrs.,

¶9

T.Lavenya, W/o. Thota Srinivas, Aged^{30 yrs-,}

¶10

Both Rl/o. P.No.69, Road No.3, Mail Hills, Boduppal,^{Hyderabad 500 39}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana^State.

¶15

3 The Station House Officer, Saidabad Police Station, Lakdikapool,^Hyderabad District.

¶16

4 M/s. Country Vacations a Division of Country, Club^{Hospitality and Holidays} Ltd., company incorporated Under the Companies Act,^{1956 having its .} Registered office at Amrutha Castle, No. 5-9-16, Saifabad,^{Opp Secretariat,} Hyderabad-63 . Rep. by its CMD Y.Ra.ieev Reddy.

¶17

5 M/s. Country vacations a Division of Country,^{CIub lndia Ltd.,Corporate office} at Country Club lndia, Country Club Fool Building,^{No. 6-3-.1219/A,2nd Floor,} Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016. Rep. by its General^Manager.

¶18

6 tr,4/s. Country Vacations a Division of Country Club,^{Hospitality and Holidays} Ltd., Registered office at Amrutha Castle,^{No- 5-9-16, Saifabad,} Opp Secretariat, Hyderabad-63 Rep. by^{its Sales Manager Md. Nisarullah,EC} No.CV 585..

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ or Order^{or Directionmore particularlyone in the natureof} the^{Writ of Mandamus by declaringthe action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in} not^{registering the Crime basingon the Complaint dated10.05.2017 lodged by the}

¶21

petitioners again it Respondent No. 4 to 6 and not conducting the investigation is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to section 154 of the Criminal procedure Code and consequently dirr:ct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to Register the Crime basing on complaint dated^'10.05.2017 lodged by the petitioners and to conduct the investigation.

¶22

t.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 47O22 OF 20171

¶23

Petition urrder Section 15i 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:; No. 2 and 3 to register the crime basing on the complaint dated 10.05.2017 lodtred by the petitioners against Respondent No.4 to 6 and to conduct the investigation pending disposal of the petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VENKAT REDDy KODUMURy

¶25

(being not present)

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGp FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6:--

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶30

WRIT PETITION No oF 20td

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

'l'his Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution

¶33

of India seeking the following rcliefls:-

¶34

". . .to issue a \X'rit or Order or Direction morc particularly^{one in thc} narure of the Writ of Mandamus by^{declaringthe actionofthe} Respondents No.2 and 3 in not^{registeringthc Crime basing on thc} Ct>mplaint dated 10.05.2017 lodged by the^{petitionersagainstRespondcnt} l.r-o.^-1 to^(r and not conductiltg the^{invcstigationis illegal,arbitranand} contrar\ to section 154 of the.^{Criminal Procedurc(lodc and consequentlv} rlircct thc llesponclcnts No- 2 and 3 to^{ReSistcrthe (lnmebasingc,tr} cornplarnt dated 10.05.2017 lodgcd by.thc petitioners^{andto conductthe} irx-cstigarion and pass... -,,"

¶35

) None appcars on bchalI o[ the petitioners.

¶36

Ilcard lcarned Assistant Govcrnmcnt^{Pleadcr For I'Iomc}

¶37

appcaring [<rr respondent Nos. 1 to^3.

¶38

1.^'['hc learncd Assistant Governmcnt^{Plcadcr f<rr I Iomc} submits that thc relicf sought in^{the prescntrvrit peridon-namclv,} a dircction to thc police authoritics to^{register a criminal 6n5s-i5} n()t maintainable under Article 226 of the^{(lonstitution o[ India,in} vicw of thc well-setdcd lcgal Position^{laid dorvn by the Hon'blc} Suprcmc Oourt.

¶39

l I har.e carcfully perused the matcrials placed^{on rccord.}

¶40

¶41

6.^'fhe lyievance o[^{the peritioners, in substance,is that despite} having written complaint^{dated 10.05.2017, thc concerned police} authorities failed to^{rcgistera case. Aggrieved by suchinaction,the} petitioners have^{invoked the writ} iurisdiction^{of this Court under} Aricle 22.6 of the Constitution^{of India, seeking a writ o[} mandamus dirccting thc^{policc auth()ritiesto registera crimc.}

¶42

The legal position^{govcrning mattcrs of this nature is well} settlcd and no longer^{res integru. ln Sakii f/asu a. State of U.P'd2} Otben (A1R2008^{SC 907), the t{on'bleSuprcme Courtcategodcally} held that whcn the gricvancc^{pcrtainsto the reflusal of the police to} register a liirst [nformation^Rep<>rt €IR),^{thc remedy o[} approaching the High^{(.ourt undcr Aricle 226 is ordinarily not} available.^'['hc Court^{cmphasized that the Codc of Criminal} Procedur:c, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.")^{providcs an adequateand efficacious} statlrtory framcwork^{to address such grievances.}

¶43

Tbis principlc has bcen^{consistendyreaffirmedin subsequent} iudicial^{pronouncements.Most notably, in M. Sttbramaniama- S.} Janaki^{el: Otheru (AIR 2020 SC 387), r three-Judge Bench of the} Hon'ble Supremc Court clarified that the proper^{course for an}

¶44

¶45

aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 (lr.P.C. rather rhan dircctly invoking thc writ jurisdiction o[ the IIigh^(.r>urt.

¶46

In light of thesc sctded legal principles, and in thc absence^<>f any exceptional clr cxtraordinary circumstances that would^warrant intcrvcntion bv this Court under Aracle 226, the relief sought^by, thc pcrit.ir.rncrs c2rnnot bc cntcrtained.^'Ihe statutory schcmc provides sufficient and efFtcacious remedies befcrrc the^compctent Magistratc, and the pctitioncrs are at libcrry to pursuc such rcmedies in accordancc with law, should his #evance still subsist

¶47

,\ccordingly, thc rvrit pctition is dismissed as^n()t

¶48

rnaintainablc. l'hcrc shall bc no order as to costs.

¶49

Misccllaneous l)etitions, pending if any, shall stand closcd.

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

. P.C.SULEKHA D ISTANT REG R CTION OFFICER

¶52

To, 1. One CC to Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, Advoc t UC] 2. fwo CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State elangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies TJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911012025

ORDER

WP.No.37t357 of 2017

?. 1 "IE SIA
0
L; I 3 J At{ 2t26
*
,(
n

¶59