Dismissed

Vadija Tirupathi v. The State Of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2025WP/7094/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, in sanction No. IA No. 1 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 7094 of 2018, dismissed a petition seeking a direction to police authorities to register an FIR based on complaints of fraud. The court held the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 as statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. were available and adequate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable without costs.

Vadija Tirupathi Vs The State Of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:^{7094 OF 2018}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vadija Tirupathi, S/o.^{Sandaiah, aged abo.tlt 3! yeap,} .Occ^{Agriculture,r/o.} Xeiannapaili viliage H/o.^{Muskani-peta, Ellanthakuntafvlandal, Karimnagar} District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Telangana,^{representedby its Principal Secretary,Home} Department, Secretlriat^{Buildings, Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Superintendent of^{Police, Karimnagar District at Karimnagar.}

¶14

The Station House^{Officer, Ellanthakunta Police Station, Karimnagar District.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

petition under Article 226 of 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 natureof} Mandamus, declaring the action^{of the respondents2 and 3 herein in not taking} any action in^pursuance to^{the complaint lodgedbythe petitioneron 31'05.2016} & 18.05.2016 respectively^{againstthe persons who haveplayedfraud on the} family of the^petitioner for^{their illegal enrichment and not even registering an FIR} or causing any enquiries^{in terms of the Judgmentof the Honourable Apex Court} in the case of Lalitha Kumari^{Vs. State of U.P, as being illegal, arbitraryand} consequently direct the respondents^{to take action. on the complaintslodged by} the petitioner on 31.05.2016^{& 18.05.2016 respectively with them and to register} and FlR.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto} direct the respondents 2 & 3 to^{take actionon the representations/complaints}

¶19

submitted by tre petitioner on 31.05.2016 & 18.05.2016 forthwith, pending disposal of the :lbove writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. CHALAPATHI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. PRADEEP, ASST. Gp FOR HOME

¶22

The Court mads the following: ORDER

¶23

i i ! I E ,I I

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶25

UrRIT PETITION No.7O94 OF 2()ta

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

¶28

'...to issue Eu1 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Manddmus declaring the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in taking any action in pursuance to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 31.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 respectively against the persons who have played fraud on the family of the petitioner for their illegal enrichment and not even registering an FIR or causing any enquiries in terms of ttre Judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take action on the complaints lodged by the petitioner on 31.05.2O16 and 18.05.2OL6 respectively with them and to register an FIR anfl to pass..."

¶29

Heard Mr.M.Chalapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the petitioner's representations dated 31.05.2016 and 18.05.2016, the respondent police authorities failed to register a crime/FlR. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for issuance of €rn appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

¶31

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner's representations dated 31.05.2016 an& 18.05.2016 were considered and as the averments are of civil in

! i:l !

I Ita

r IIItI I

nature, the same were closed by insisting the petitioner to avail appropriate, civil remedies. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, should have availed statutory remedies. It is further submitted that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a ,lirection to the police authorities to register a criminal case, is not maintainable under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Honble Su.preme Court.

¶37

I have perused the material placed on record.

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submittintl a written complaint dated 31.o5.2o16 and 18.05.2016 the concet'ned police authorities failed to register a case. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. In Sakin vasu u. state of Lr.P. & others (AIR 2008 sc goz), the Hon'ble Supreme court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the proper remedy does not lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High court under Article 226. The court emphasized that the code of criminal Procedure, 1973 ("cr.p.c.") provides a.n adequate and efficacious statutory mechanism to red.ress such grievances.

¶39

¶40

.i-:ffi tr/

¶41

7 ' ,^t'u'' This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the Honble supreme court in subsequent judgments. Notably, in M. Subramaniam us. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 3BZ), a three-Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the remedies provided under the cr.P.c., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 2oo,"rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

¶42

In light of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumsta.nces warranting intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the cr.P.c./BNSS provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, if their grievance still surylves.

¶43