Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15593
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. TUKARAMJI, J
SHREEPAD N. PURKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TG PRL.SCY HOME HYD AND 5 – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.27569 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Home
The court affirmed that the remedy for failure to register an FIR lies within the Code of Criminal Procedure, not through Article 226 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner sought a writ directing police to register a case due to inaction by authorities on a complaint dated 16.11.2015 - Court held that the proper remedy is under Cr.P.C. instead of directly invoking writ jurisdiction. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Legal Position - Court clarified the established legal principle that refusal by police to register an FIR does not generally allow for remedy under Article 226, emphasizing the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as sufficient and efficacious. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner claimed that his representations were ignored by police, necessitating a writ mandamus to direct investigation and provide protection.
Findings of Court:
The court maintained that the petitioner should seek remedies under the Cr.P.C., not the writ jurisdiction.
Issues: The court considered whether a writ mandamus could compel police action.
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling affirmed that the crux of the procedure remains within the Criminal Procedure Code, discouraging direct recourse to writ petitions barring exceptional circumstances.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner alleges inaction of police on complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. assistant government pleader argues against maintainability. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court cites precedent for proper procedure in police grievance. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final ruling is that the writ petition is dismissed. (Para 10) |
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “…To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction on the part of respondents 2 to 4 herein in not considering the various representations of the petitioner including the one dated 11.07.2016 is highly arbitrary, unjust and unfair and also vioaltive of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-4A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 11.07.2016 and register cases against respondents 5 and 6 herein and also bring all the accused who acted hand in glove in sanctioning the loan and their staff and threatening to the life of the petitioner and his family and bring them under law while giving police protection to the petitioner and his family..…”
2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contends 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 of the Constitution of India, in light of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials placed on record.
6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite having lodged a written complaint dated 16.11.2015, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.
7. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“ Cr.P.C .”) provides a comprehensive and efficacious statutory mechanism for addressing such grievances.
8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the appropriate course for an aggrieved party is to avail remedies under the Cr.P.C ., such as by approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156 (3) or 200 Cr.P.C ., rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
9. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting intervention under Article 226, this Court finds the relief sought by the petitioner to be untenable. The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C . provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
