IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.15300 OF 2018

DATE : 10.12.2025

Between:

Tati Badraiah

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana & Others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue an order, direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the inaction of the Police in not registering FIR on the complaint given on 22-1-2018 by the petitioner and not taking any action against the culprits, under SCST(POA) Act apart with the IPC is illegal improper arbitrary , violating the constitutional rights and natural justice, and consequently direct the respondents No. 3 to 5 to register FIR on the culprits as per my complaint Dated. 22- 1-2018 and do investigation while directing the Respondent No.2 to monitor the case under SCST(POA) Act apart with the IPC until getting justice to the petitioner , Further direction to the 2nd respondent he may direct the lower level officers to make inquiry in this regard and conduct the demarcation of Sy.NO. 315 of admeasuring Extent of 11-34 Gunts situated in Rudrakshapally Village pending disposal of the above writ

petition and pass.........”

2. Heard Mr.G.L.Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the police in registering a crime on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 22.01.2018, wherein allegations were made against certain individuals under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST (POA) Act”). The petitioner, therefore, seeks an appropriate direction from this Court for registration of the case and for initiation of action in accordance with law.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the basis of written instructions, submits that upon receipt of the petitioner’s representation and in compliance with the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Others, a preliminary enquiry was conducted. Based on the report submitted by the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, it was observed that the allegations made in the representation were civil in nature. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief, and the representation was closed. Hence, the allegation that the respondent police authorities failed to act upon the representation is unfounded. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police authorities failed to register a case and take action against the accused under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. However, the explanation furnished by the respondents indicates that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered, and a preliminary enquiry was conducted in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Upon completion of such enquiry, the competent police authorities, exercising their jurisdictional discretion, concluded that the allegations were civil in nature and accordingly advised the petitioner to pursue civil remedies.

7. This factual position clearly demonstrates that the respondent police authorities have, in fact, acted upon the petitioner’s representation. Nonetheless, if the petitioner continues to be aggrieved by the said decision, the appropriate course of action would have been to avail the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”)

or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

8. It is well settled that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for