Dismissed

Smt E.Eshwari Bhai v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Aug 2025WP/40164/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing police to act on her complaint regarding alleged illegal demolition of her house premises. The court held the writ petition was not maintainable, as adequate remedies exist under CrPC and BNSS, dismissed it with liberty to pursue remedies before the competent court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty reserved to petitioner to avail remedies under law before the competent court; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Smt E.Eshwari Bhai Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

3217 l

¶2

I.iIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI'IGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisciiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 40164 OF 2016

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt E.Eshwari Bhai, D/o Late P Narasimha, Aged about 30 Years, OCC Household, Rl/o H.No 12-8-334, Allugadda Bavi, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.

¶9

..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by Princlpal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Police,, North Zone, IVlaredpally, Secunderabad.

¶13

3 The Sub-lnspector of Police, Chilakalaguda Police Station,^-

¶14

4 Mohd. Farooq, S/o. Late Mohd. lbrahim, Aged about 70 Years, Occ Business, RYo. H. No. 12-5-4311, Vijayapuri, South Lalaguda, Tarnakara, Secunderabad.

¶15

5 Mohd. Abbas,, S/o Late tvlohd. Ibrahim, Aged about 57 Years, Occ Business, Rlo 11-3-224, Padma Rao Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶16

6 Ivlohd. ldris, S/o Late Mohd. lbrahim, Aged about 56 Years, Occ Business, R/o 253, Anjaiah Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶17

7 lvlrs. Hibibunnassa, Wio Khala [tzlounuddin, Aged about 58 Years, Occ Housewife, Rl/o 9-1 1-430/4l4,llloli Darwaza, Golconda, Hyderabad.

¶18

B IVIrs. Hidayathunnisa, W/o Mohd. Nasar, Aged about 47 Years, Occ Housewife, Rl/o 285, Adavaiah Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶19

9 lt4rs. Zeenathunnassia, W/o Meraj Hassan, Aged about 42 Years, Occ Housewife, No 2Bl , Advaiah Nagar, Secunderabad.

¶20

'10.Smt. Shenaz Begum, W/o Late Mohd. Yousuf, Aged about 52 Years, Occ Housewife.

¶21

1 1.1\4ohd Laeeq S/o Late tt4ohd. Yousuf,, Aged about 35^years, Occ Pvt Service, lr/oulali, Hyderabad. Both are No 44-43711131 , Srinagar colony Moulali, Hyderabad

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndrr praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the ligh Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order, or drrection more^{particularly rne in the nature of} writ of l,4andamus by declaring lhe^{inactionof the responderrrlNo 2 in considering} the complaint / representation of^{petrtioner dated 25-1O 2('6, aboutthe illegal} demolition of the House Premises^{bearingH.No12-8-31 1, AllugaddaBavi} l\4ettuguda, Secunderabad and damage to the^{belongings of the petittoners} family, as being illegal, arbitrary,^{viclativeof Articles 14 and tof the Constitution} of lndia, besides violative^{of Principles of Natural Justicean,Jconsequently direct} the 2nd respondent to take action^{on the complaint / reprr: entation dt- 25-10-} 2016 of the^petitioner

¶24

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016^(W PMP. NO:49459 OF^20'16)

¶25

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^praying that^{in the crrl rmstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Cour rray be pleased to} direct the 2nd respondent to take action on the complaint^{/ r€ lresentation dt: 25-} 10-2016 of the^{petitioner,pendrng} disposal^{of the WritPetitio I}

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: Ms} SRUA, appearing^{on behalf of SF I PARSA ANANTH} NAGESWAR RAO

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3^{: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REtrlY,AGP FOR HOME}

¶28

Counsel for the F-espondents No.4to11:

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶31

WRIT PETITION No. 40764 0F 2076

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Vrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶34

"...to issue a writ, order or direction, more parlicularly one in the nature of ltrit of Mandamus b.v declaring thc inaction of the respondentNo.2 in considering the complainl/representation of petitioner dated 25.10.2016, about the illegal demolition of the House Premises bearing H.No-12-8-334, Allugadda Bavi, Mettuguda, Secunderabad and damage to tha bclongings of the petitioner's family, as being illegal. arbitrary, t'iolatiyc o.f Articles l4 and 2 ) of the Constitution of India, besides^yiolatn'c of Principles of Natural Justice and consequentlv direct lhe 2"d rc-spondent to take action on the complaint/represcntation dt:25.10.2016 of the pelilioner and pass such other order/s as this Court deems ft and proper in the circumstances of the case... "

¶35

I have heard IvIs.SnjE leamed counsel appearing on behaH of

¶36

the petitioner as well as Mr.Rlaxmikanth Reddy, Iearned fusistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing for respondenr Nos.1 to 3.

¶37

3 Leamed counsel for the petitioner submim that, owing ro the acts allegedly committed, the petitioner submirted a represenrarion dated 25.t0.2016. As rhe said representarion v/as neirher corsidered

¶38

.r-

¶39

)

¶40

nor acted upon by the^{respondents, the} petitioner^{ras approached} this Court^{seeking appropriate} directions.

¶41

In response, the leamed fusistant Govemrr :nt Pleader for Home contends that the substance of the pet tioner's prapr amounts to^{a requestfor registration} of a criminal^c xe pursuant to his representation dated^25.10.2016. It is, howev,: , a^well-senled principle of law that a writ petition under AnL, le 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained solely^I rr the pulpose of seeking a direction to register a crime, u,ith rut exhausting

¶42

effective and adequate statutory remedies available^,r rder law.

¶43

I^have pensed the materials on record.

¶44

The peticioner's grievance is that the c< r cemed police authorities failed to register a case pursuant to her representation dated 25.1,0.2016. The issue raised in the present w' . petition is no longer res integra.In Sakii Vasu u. State 0f U.P. antl^(t bers (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme C-ourt categorically t eld that where

¶45

the poJice fail to register a complaint, the complain;r t has adequate remedies under the Code of Giminal Procedure, 197 ) (G.P-.C).

¶46

¶47

In such^{situation, the} proper course is to first approach the Superintendent of^Police under Section 154(3) Cr.p.C, and thereafter,^{if necessary,} to move the^{jurisdictional} Magistrate under Section¹⁵⁶⁽³⁾ G.P.C Similar procedural safeguards have now been incoqporatedⁱⁿ the^Bbaratja I''lagaik Suraksba Sanhitha (for short,^"BNSS").

¶48

This^legal position has been consistently reaffirmed. In M. Subramaniam a. S. Janaki (AIR 2020 SC 387), the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed solely for the purpose of seeking^registration of an FIR, is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutoly remedies available. Following the same principle, this C-ourt, tn Gouind Rala Sarui u. State of Te/angana (2019 SCC Online TS 3491), held that such writ petitions are nor maintainable without first exhausting the alternative remedies provided under law

¶49

9 In light of these senled principles, the present petition is held to be not maintainable. However, libeny is reserved to the

¶50

¶51

¶52