THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.37359 OF 2018

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 to declare the inaction of the respondents 2 to 4 in registering the F.I.R against the respondents 5 to 1 and recovering the Rythu Bandhu Scheme amount of Rs. 51,900/-, pattadar pass books. 3 tulas of gold and other documents is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Cr.P.C. and violation of Articles 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide protection to the petitioners from the hands of the respondents 5 to by recovering the Rythu Bandhu Scheme amount of Rs. 51,900/-, pattadar pass books, 3 tulas of gold and other documents and pass…”

2. Heard Mr. Ganeshwara Rao Nidumukkala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to

4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite the petitioner having submitted a representation dated 02.10.2018, Information Report (FIR) in accordance with law. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to ensure registration of a case based on the said representation.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that upon examination of the petitioner’s representation dated 02.10.2018, it was found that the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature. Consequently, the petitioner was advised to avail appropriate civil remedies before the competent forum. It is therefore contended that the allegations regarding non-registration of the crime and alleged inaction on the part of the police authorities are factually unfounded and legally untenable. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the action or inaction of the police authorities, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore contends that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, issuance of a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India compelling the police to register a criminal case, is not maintainable.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submission of a written complaint dated 02.10.2018, the

7. The action taken by the police authorities as reported by the learned Assistant government Pleader for Home is indicating that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and the police have exercised their jurisdictional discretion in registering the Crime. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he ought to have availed appropriate remedies available under law.

8. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), 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 appropriate remedy 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 and efficacious statutory mechanism for redressal of such grievances.

9. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgments. Notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three- Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the statutory remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

10. In view of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,