The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandatory injunction to direct police registration of a crime. The court held that the statutory remedies under CrPC/BNS are adequate and the petition was not maintainable without exhausting those remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t3217 |
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original J urisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION NO: 22746 OF 2019
Between:
Deekonda Pandari, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Dharmaram Village and Mandal ,Peddapalli District, Telangana State.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof india praylng thatin the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Courtmay be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, moreparticularly one in tne nqture of writ of mandamus declaring the inactionon the part of the respondents 2 to 4in not registering the complaint dated18-04-2019lodged by thepetitionerwiththe
4th responderrt herein against the respondents 5 to 8 herein as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being.violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently Jirect the 4th respondent herein to register a Crime against the resp.ondents {t to 8 herein and investigate the case by disposing of the representation of the petitioner dated 16-04-2019.
lA NO: 1 OF 2(119
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent herein to register a Crime against the respondents 5 to 8 herein and investigate the case by disposing of the representation of the petitioner dateJ 16-04-2019, pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for th,e Petitioner: SRI ANNNAMPELLI GANGADHAR
Counsel for th,e Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for th,-' Respondent Nos.S to 8:--
The Court macie the following: ORDER
.tr-, ! ( IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.22746 OF 2019
DATE :10.02.2026
Between:
Deekonda Pandari
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 7 others
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...fo issue a writ or order or direction, more padicularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to 4 in not registering the complaint dated 18-04-2019 lodged by the petitioner with the 4th respondent herein against the respondenfs 5 fo B herein as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violative of principles of naturaljustice and consequentty direct the 4th respondent herein to register a Crime against the respondenfs 5 to 8 herein and investigate the case by dr'sposrng of the representation of the petitioner dated 1 6-04-2019 ..."
I
a 'l
2
I
il ll ii : i
.r'€
J
6.' The specific contentionofthe petitioner''s thahis representation has notbeen duly considered by the police authorities for the purpose of registeringa crime. The explanationoffered by the learned Assistant GovernmentPleaderfor Home indicatesthat, upon receipt of the representationand after conductinga preliminary enquiry, thepolice authoritiesexercised their discretion in not registering a crime. Suchaction appears reasonable, aS the respondentpolice concludedthat the allegations werecivil in nature.
g. .The tegal position governing the issue is well settled. ln Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others(A!R 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categoricallyheld that where the grievance pertains to the failure of thepolice toregister an FlR, the appropriateremedy does not lie in invoking thewrit jurisdictionof the High Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitutionof lndia.The Court emphasized that the Cr.P.C. provides a comptete,efficacious, and statutorymechanism particularly under Sections 154(3),156(3),and 190 enabting an
4
l.I
aggrieved person to seek appropriate relief before the competent ., Magistrate.
$:. This principle has been consistenfly reaffirmed in subsequent decisions cf the Hon'ble supreme Court. Notably, in M. Subramaniam v. s. Janaki & others (AlR 2020 sc 387), a three-Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the remedies provided under the cr.P.c., and that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked by bypassing such statutory remedies, except in exceptional circu msta nces.
11.. Accordingly, with the above liberty, the writ petition is disposed - of. There shall be no order as to costs. '--..
\4
,:,,, 1 i:ll.:i
{-r
5
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To,
G
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
rn @i
q
d
HIGH COIURT
DATED:1t0/0212026
THE
? 6 r[8 ?n?fr
ORDER
WP.No .22746 of 2019
DISPOSIN|G OF THE WRIT PETIT|ON WITHOUT COSTS
6<br>Y4'# !
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Referred¶56
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907) · Who else cites this
M. Subramaniam v. S. JanakiReferred¶60
M. Subramaniam v. s. Janaki & others (AIR 2020 sc 387) · Who else cites this
Deekonda Pandari
The State of Telangana
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
