Disposed

K.Anil Dev v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2026WP/5973/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus directing police to act on his complaint for land-related offences based on an interim order in a suit to which he was not a party. The court held statutory remedies under the CrPC must first be exhausted and disposed of the writ petition reserving his rights.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Anil Dev Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5973 OF 20'19

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Anil Dev, Sio.Kantepudi Jona, Aged about 63 years, Occ ; Agriculture, R/o.Khammam Town and District

¶9

.,...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Dammapeta Police Station Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Dammapeta l/andal Bhadradri Kothagudem Diskict.

¶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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents^{2 and 3 in} failing to act upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 16.03.2019 for taking action against the named accused inspite of enclosing the^protection order granted by the Government in l.A.No.26 of 2012 in O.S.No.9 of 2009, d1.O3.11.2012 for his agricultural land situated in Dammapeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutional and also^violativeof the provisions of Cr.P.C. and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4^to forthwith register the complaint for the offences mentioned in the complaint

¶17

against the named accused by resorting^{to provisionsof cr,P ( . and PD Act and} for investigation.

¶18

|.A.NO:1 OF 2019

¶19

Petition under Section^'151 CPC^{praying that in the circlr rstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the HighCourt r ay be pleasedto} direct the Respondents 2^and 3 to^{register the complair1 of the petitioner} dt.16.03.20¹ I for the offences mentioned^{in the complainte} 3ainst^{the named} accused by resorting to^{provisionsof cr.P.c.and PD Act arr for investigation,} pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{M.JANARDHAN RAO}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP^{FOR HOME}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4^: GP^{FOR REVENUE}

¶23

The Court made the following ORDER

¶24

lN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶26

WRIT PETITIO N No.597 3 0F 2019

06th Februa ry. 2026

Between:

K.Anil Dev

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana and Others

¶33

...Respondents

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

¶36

".,.Io rssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents 2 and 3 in faiting to act upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 16.03.201g for taking action against the named accused inspite of enclosing the protection order granted by the Government in l.A.No.26 of 2012 in O.S.No.9 of 2009, dt03.1t.2O12 for his agricuttural land situated in Dammapeta llandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District as illegat, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also violative of the provisions of Cr p.C. and consequently direct the Respordenrs 2 to 4 to forlhwith register the complaint for the offences mentioned in the complaint against the named accused by resofting to provisions of Cr.P.C. and pD Act and for investigation, and pass....."

¶37

2. None for the petitioner.

¶38

¶39

3 Heard^{tr/lr.D.Pradeep, learned AssistantGovetrmentPleader}

¶40

for Home

¶41

Learned^{Assistant Government Pleaderfor l-} rme submitted that the^{petitioner sought registration of a crimezrt} d extension^of police protection^{purportedly in pursuance of the ol} Cers^passedin l.A. No.26 of^{2012 in O S' No 9 of 2009' in res} cect of certain agricultural^{land. However, it was pointed out that} he said interim ' and that the order was^{not passed in favour of the petitione} :edings.^{ln the} petitioner was^{not even a party to the said proc} etent Civil^Court absence^{of any specific direction issuedby the comS} for extending^{police protection,no steps were tal:r} n by the Police authorities^{lt was further submitted that, if the pe} titioner was^still aggrieved,^{he oughtto have availed the appropriak:} remedies before the competent^{authority or under the provisions} of the Code^of lismissal of^the Criminal^{Procedure,1973. On these grounds''} petition was PraYed^for.

¶42

I have^{perusedthe material available on recor} I

¶43

'esentation dated 6. The contention^{of the petitioneris that his re:} spondents/Police 16.03.2019 has^{not been acted upon by the i} authorities and that^{police protectionhas not} reen grantedⁱⁿ pursuance of an interim order^{passed by the Civil o} rurt.

i I r i l I i

As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the suit proceedings and the interim order relied upon were not in favour of the petitioner, nor was he a party thereto. However, the petitioner sought porice protection merery by submitting a representation to the police authorities. ln the absence of any specific direction for extending protection from the competent court the police remaining sirence is found reasonabre. rnsofar as the grievance pertains to alleged non-registration of a crime or non_ extension of police protection, the petitioner ought to have availed the statutory remedies provided under the code of criminal procedure. Without exhausting such remedies, the reliefs sought cannot be sustained.

¶48

lt is well settled in similar circumstances in Hon,ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.p. & Others, AIR 20OB SC g07 and M.Subramaniam y- S. Janaki & Others (AlR 2020 SC 3S7),, in which it was held that non registration of crime and taking action there upon cannot be a sole ground for seeking a remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia without exhausting remedies under Cr.p.C. ln the instant case, the petitioner except filing a representation to the police, no further action has been taken.

¶49

I That being the position and in the light of setfled legal position referred to above, the prayer of the petitioner stands not

¶50

¶51

¶52

maintainable. i-1o*"r"r,^{reserving the rights of the : -.titionerto avail}

¶53

appropriate in terms^{of statutory procedure conteml) ated under law'}

¶54

this writ Petition is disposed^{of. There shall be no orl lr as to costs.}

¶55

lVliscellaneous^{Petitions, pendingif any, shall t;1 and closed}

¶56

SD/-C. DEEPIKA tt rarur REGlgrRAtr //TRUE COPY//

¶57

';Ecflon^oFFrcER

¶58

¶59

The Principal Secretary, Home Department Secreta ) ate of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶60

The Superintendent of Police, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kr hagudem District. J. The Station House Officer, Dammapeta Police Station Bh rdradri Kothagudem District.

¶61

4 The Tahsildar, Dammapeta N/andal Bhadradri Kothagudr> r District. 5 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of I 3langana at

¶62