Dismissed

Smt. Kambam Madaramma, v. The State of Telanganan

Telangana HC3 Nov 2025WP/9082/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing police to register a crime against private respondents over alleged breach of trust and fraudulent transfer of maintenance property. The court held the writ petition not maintainable, following Supreme Court precedent that Cr.P.C. provides adequate remedy for police inaction, and dismissed it with liberty to approach the magistrate.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Kambam Madaramma, Vs The State of Telanganan — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

It l, i ir

¶2

13217 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶8

WRIT PETITION : 9082 0F 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt. Kambam Jtladaramma, W/o. Ramaih, aged⁴⁵ years, Occ: House hold, R/o. Nagulavancha, Chinthakani [Mandal, Khammam District

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telanganan, Rep. by its^Prl. Secretary,^{HomeDepartment} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

The Superintend of Police, Khammam^{District at Khammam.}

¶15

The. Station House Officer, Chintakanai, Khammam^District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Chinthakani lvlandal,^{Chinthakani, KhammamDistrict.}

¶17

Kambam Ramiah, S/o. Late Narasaiah^{Age.55 years,AzadNagar, Kodad,} Nalgonda District.

¶18

Smt. ttlosam Padma, W/o. Ramaiah, age^{48 years H.No.116/8, Azad Nagar,} Kodad, Nalgonda District.

¶19

Kambam Usha Rani, D/o. Ramaiah,^Age. 23^{years, Fl/o.H.No.11618, Azad} Nagar, Kodad, Nalgonda District.

¶20

Smt. Mosam Bhadramma,^{W/o Yadadri H.No.11618,Azad Nagar, Kodad,} Nalgonda District.

¶21

fi/osam Satyam, S/o. Mangaiah, Rl/o.^{H.No.1 -12911,PostofficeBazar, Kodad,} Nalgonda District.

¶22

10.Khabam Bixapathi, S/o. Narasiah, Age.^{55 years,Ocu. Driverin T.S.R.T.C,} tMadhira Depot Madhira. Khammam District.

¶23

11.Smt. Ambati Santhamma, W/o.Venkateswarlu,^{Age.55 years, Occ. House} hold, Fi/o. Nagulavancha, Chinthakani fi/landal,^{Khammam District.}

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith, the HiEhCourt may be} pleased to issue a Writ order or Direction more^particularly one^{in the natureof}

¶26

:.:l

¶27

I ,.1

¶28

Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent police in not registering the crime against the unofficial respondents Nos 5 to 11 in connection causes brear:h of trust and fraudulentty traniferred the agreement of maintenance lroperty of petitioner lands R.s.No. 696/4 for an extent of 123 Guntas wet larrd R.S.No. 358 to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts land and tailed House 'No'^{2-48 and} its open site 450 Yards situated at Nagulivancha Revenue village, Chinthakani IVandal, Khammam District, and again'married another women, in spite of my corrplainant is illegal and void and Jpposed to Article 14, 19,21 and 300-A of Conr;titution of lndia and consequently'to direct the 3rd respondent Police registerrng crime against the respondent Nos 5 to.11.

¶29

IA NO: 10F

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, irre uigrr court may oL pleased to directing the 3r'd Respondent to regisiering crime alainst the Reipondents No s 5 to 11 immediatery, pending disposar of thL main wiit petition.

¶31

counsel for the Petitioner: sRt KoNDAPALLI syAM suNDER

¶32

counsel for th* Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI D. PRADEEP, ASST. Gp FoR HOME

¶33

Counsel for ther Respondent No.4: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶34

Counsel for ther Respondent No.5 to 11:

¶35

The Court mad,-. the following: ORDER

¶36

¶37

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶39

WRIT PETITION No.9082 of 2018

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia

¶42

seeking the following relief:

¶43

"...fo issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of * respondent police in not registering the crime against the unofficial respondenf Nos.5 to 11 in connecfion causes breach of trust and fraudulently transferred the agreement of maintenance property of petitioner lands R.S. No.696/A for an extent of 123 guntas wet land and R.S.No.35B to an extent of 4c.1.00 guntas land and tailed House No.2-48 and its open site 450 Yards situated at Nagulavancha Revenue Village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District, and again married another women, in spite of her complaint is illegal and void and opposed to Articbs 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia and consequentty to direct * respondent police registering crime against respondent Nos.S fo 11 and to pass..... "

¶44

None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

¶45

Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶46

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the police authorities never received any complaint from the petitioner and, therefore, no crime has been registered. lt is further submitted that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction to td police authorities to register a criminal case, is not maintainable under

¶47

¶48

Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, in view of the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia.

¶49

¶50

I har,'e carefully perused the material placed on record.

¶51

The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite having submitted ir written complaint, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case.

¶52

The legal position governing such matters is well settled in Sakiri Vasu^y. Sferfe of lJ.P. & Others [AlR 2008 SC 907]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court catel;orically held that where the grievance pertains to the refusal or failure c,f the police to register a First lnformation Report (FlR), the appropriate course is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C-") provides an adequate, effective, and comprehensive mechanism to address such grievances, and that recourse must first be had to the statutory remedies available therein.

¶53

This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent decisions. lvlost notably, in M. Subramaniam^y. S. Janaki & Ofhers [AlR 2O2O SC :]87], a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'bte Supreme Court reiterated tlrat the proper remedy for an aggrieved,party, in the event of police inacl:ion, is to avail the procedures prescribed under the Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that bypassing these remedies and directly invoking \

¶54

¶55

¶56

the extraordinary^jurisdiction of the High Court^{under Article 226is}

¶57

impermissible, except in exceptional or extraord^{inary circumstances.}

¶58

ln light of these authoritative^{pronouncements,} and in^{the absence} of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference,^{this Courtis of} the considered view that the relief sought by the^{petitloner underArticle} 226 of the Constitution of lndia cannot be entertained.^However,the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the grievance before the magistrate concerned, in accordance with law, should the cause^{still persist.}

¶59

iO. Accordingly, this writ^petition is dismissed as not^{maintainable.}

¶60

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

Miscellaneous Petitions,^pending if any, shall stand^closed.

¶62

SD/. B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. One CC to SRl. KONDAPALLI SYAIVI SUNDER, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOtVlE,^{High Court for the State of Telangana.} [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE,^{High Court for the State of Telangana.} lourl

¶67