Dismissed

M. Hanumantha Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Oct 2025WP/40698/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging police inaction regarding FIR registration was dismissed. The High Court held that statutory remedies under Cr.P.C., such as an application under Section 156(3), must be exhausted before approaching the Court under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking a direction to register a crime and arrest accused was dismissed as not maintainable under Article 226.

M. Hanumantha Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELA}IGANA AT HYDERAEAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MOi,|DAY, THE SIXTH DAYOF OCTOBER TWO THOI.'SAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:40698 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Hanumantha Reddy, Si/o Sri. Narasimha Reddy, Agred about 38 years, Ooc : Agricultural, Ri./o. H.No. 2-82, Tondapaliy Village, Parg, Mandal, Vkarabad District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its principal Secrelary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Vikarabad District. Vikarabad.

¶13

The Station Flouse Offrcer, Pargi Police Station, Pargi Mandal, Vikarabad District.

¶14

Koppula Mahesh Reddy, S/o Hariswar Reddy, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Pargi Mandal-Village, Vikarabad District.

¶15

Mohd. Sadiq, S/o Mohd. Gani, Aged about 42 years Occ: Business, Rlo. Khan Colony, Pargi Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District.

¶16

..,.,RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the drcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High C,owt may be pleased to issue a writ order of direction more particularly one in the na{re of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 in regis€ring the crirne and apprehending the accused i.e., Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as illegal, arbitrary and agEinst the principles of natural^justice and consequen(ly diect the respondents t',1o.2 to 3 register a case and apprehend/anesl the aocused i.e, respordefits Nos. 4 and 5 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

i.A.NO:1 OF 201 7^{(WPMP.NO:s0s28.OF} ml⁷⁾

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the cit ;umstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Courtma} '^{be pleased to direct} the respondents No.2 and 3 in registering^{the crimez t d apprehending the} accused i.e. Respondent No.4 & 5,^{pending before the 3rj respondent,pending} finalization of the main writ^petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.SOMASUNDARAM^{(NOl'll APPEARED)} Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to^{3 : SRI M.SRINIVAS, \GP FOR HOME} Counsel for the Respondent Nos,4 & 5 :^-

¶21

The Court made the followlng ORDER

¶22

i I I : !

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

¶25

WRIT P TION No.40698 ot 2017

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This WritPetition is filed with the^{following relief:}

¶28

'...to issne a^{writ, qder or directbn,more particdadyone} in lhe nature of Writ of Madamuq^{declaritrythe inactrc,n} of the Respnderts^,Vos.2 aN^{3 in regislering tle qime} and apprelending tle accud^{i.e., RepdentsltJo,s.4} aN 5 as iilegal, ahitraty and^{againstthe principbsof} naturat^justkle aN conquently^{direct the respondents} No.2 to 3 register a case^{and apprehend/arrest the} a@u*d i-e., /esondenls^{Nos. 4 aN 5 pedingd,sposa,} of tl?€ writ^ptilkn....."

¶29

None appears on behalf of the^petitioner

¶30

Heard leamed Assistant^{Government Pleader for Home}

¶31

appearing for respondent^{Nos.1to 3.}

¶32

The leamed Assistant Government^{Pleader for Horne 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 oi lhe^{Constitution of lndia,in viewof the well-settled} legal princpbs laid down by^{the Hon'ble Supreme Court.}

¶33

5. I have perused the material^{placed on record.}

¶34

The grievance of the^{petitioner,in essenc€, is that despite} havirg submitted a^{vwitten oomplaint dated O8.05.2017,the concemed} police authorities failed to register a case.^{Aggrieved by such inac{ion,} the petitioner has approached^{this Court under Article226 oLEe}

¶35

¶36

)

¶37

Constitution of lndia, seeking a writ of mandamus ,J recting the police authorities to register a crime.

¶38

The legal position on this issue is well setfled rnd no longer res integra. ln Sakiri Vasu v. Sfate of lJ.p. &Others (l,l l2OOg SC 907), the Hon'ble suprerne court categorically held that w| :re the grievance relates to refusal by the police to register a First lr rormation Report (FlR)' the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the r rit jurisdiction of the High Court. lnstead, the Code of Criminal )rocedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficaciou s mechanism to address such grievances. The Court emphasized th rt recourse must be had to the stafutory remedies under the Cr.p.(l before seeking intervention under Article 226.

¶39

This principle has been consistentry reaffirmed i r rater decisions. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki& Ofhe s (AlR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon,ble Supremr: Court reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in thr event of police inaction, is to avail remedies provided under the (1 .p.C., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.p.C. for i direction to the police to register an FlR, or initiating proceedings ur ler Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. The Cor., t clarified that -bypassing^{these rsrnscliss} and direcfly invoking the w it jurisdiction of

¶40

¶41

tte Hish court is impeffflissibb, save in exceptionar or extraordinary circumstances.

¶42

ln light of these auttroritative pronounoements, and in the absence of any such exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Court firds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme under the Cr.p.C. provides sfficient and efficacious remedies before the cornpetent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue ttpse remedies in accordance with law should his grievance still persist.

¶43

Accordirgly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainabre. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand ctosed.

¶45

Sd/- M. NAGAM s TANT REGI //TRUE COPY//

¶46

To T]ON OFFICER 1 Two CCs to Gp Hyderabad tourl^{br HOME, High Court for the} tat of Telangana at 2. One CC to 3. TwoCD CopiesSRIJ.SOMAS UNDARAM, Advocate [OpUC SA/MP

HIGH COURT

(

DATED:06t101ZO2S

E
.-s':t,'rffil
-f'
l:r
2 r tE8 2026
. ,\ .,..r/'
- - ':-'/'

¶53

ORDER