IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.8847 OF 2018

DATE: 11.12.2025

Between :

Chamarthi Naresh.

… Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings,

Hyderabad and 13 others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in refusing to give protection from the respondent Nos.3 to 14 even though it is an established fact that there is severe threat to petitioner’s life from them as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to give protection from the respondent Nos.3 to 14 and their allies from interfering with his persona liberty

…”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3.1. Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner was duly received and entered in the General Diary on 30.03.2018. A preliminary enquiry was thereafter conducted, which revealed that the dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents was purely of a civil nature, arising out of money-related transactions.

Consequently, no criminal case was registered.

3.2. He further submits that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the alleged non-registration of a crime, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). The legal position in this regard is well settled that without exhausting the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for registration of a crime is not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

4. I have perused the material available on record.

5. The essence of the petitioner’s grievance is that, despite submitting a written representation seeking police protection against the unofficial respondents, the concerned police authorities failed to take appropriate action. From the pleadings, it is evident that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., now replaced by the BNSS, following the alleged inaction of the respondent police authorities. If the petitioner was aggrieved by such inaction, the proper course available to him was to invoke the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., by approaching the Superintendent of Police, the Magistrate, or by filing a private complaint, as recognized by the settled law. The explanation submitted by the respondents indicates that the petitioner’s representation was duly received, considered, and subjected to preliminary enquiry. Therefore, the allegation that the representation was not acted upon is unfounded.

6. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the alleged refusal of the respondent authorities to take further action, he is at liberty to pursue the appropriate statutory remedies available to him under the Cr.P.C./BNSS. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [(2008) 2 SCC 409] and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others [(2020) 16 SCC 728], has categorically held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to register an FIR or to provide police protection is not maintainable without first exhausting the efficacious alternative remedies provided under the Cr.P.C. or its corresponding successor statute. The Supreme Court has further emphasized that the High Court should not ordinarily entertain such petitions unless exceptional circumstances warrant interference in the exercise of its extraordinary jur