Dismissed

G. Nagi Reddy, v. The State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC10 Oct 2025WP/40230/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct police to register a case was dismissed as not maintainable, relying on Supreme Court precedents holding that refusal to register FIR should be challenged via CrPC remedies.

What the court decided

AI extract

G. Nagi Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 40230 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. Nagi Reddy,, Sio. G. Yella Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. Plot No.883, Gopal Rao Nagar society, Miyapur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary,, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station., Kukatpally, District. J D. Shankaraiah,, S/o: Mallaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.'l-8-530, C 302, Prasanna Residency, Chikkadpally , Hyderabad. 4 D. Shailaja,, Wo.Shankaraiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ Housewife, F/o.H.No.1-8-530, C 302, Prasanna Residency, Chikkadpally , Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No. 2 in taking legal action against the Respondent No.3 and 4 as per the complaint dated 05.09.2017 in respect of criminal trespass into the dwelling house bearing Plot No.883 and damaging the compound wall in Sy.No.148 to^'155 situated at Gopal Rao Nagar society, Miyapur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad is arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article of 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and against the principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to take legal action against the unofficial Respondents No.3 and 4.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 2 & 7: M SRINIVAS AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No 3 & 4 : -- The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

-:1i'

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.40230 OF 2017

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief:

¶21

''. . . fo issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaing the inaction of the respondent No. 2 in taking legal action against the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as per the complaint dated 05.09.2017 in respect of criminal frespass into the dwelling house beaing Plot No. 883 and damaging the compound wall in Sy. Nos. 148 to 155, situated at Gopal Rao Nagar Socieiy, Miyapur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and against the principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to take tegal action against ihe unofficial Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and pass such other or fufther orders..."

¶22

None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

¶23

Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7, submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶24

I have perused the material placed on record

¶25

¶26

Mr&/ Vt.P. No. 40230 0f2017

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having submitted written complaint dated 05 09 2017, the concerned Police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

¶28

The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and in Saklri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AlR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance^pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such^grievances

¶29

7 . This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent^judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved^party is to avail^the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the^Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C., rather than directly^{invokingthe writ} jurisdiction of the High Court.

¶30

¶31

N/RJ IV.P. No. 102)0 of 201/

¶32

B. ln light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226,the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. (or the corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). tt the cause of action still survives.

¶33