IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.37438 OF 2018

04^th December, 2025

Between:

Nambi Gopal …Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana and 4 others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no.2 to 4 in not taking any action on the representation dated 30.06.2018 is as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent no.2 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent forthwith on the representation dated 30.06.2018 in the interest of justice and equity and

pass...”

2. Heard Ms.M.Sumathi, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent Nos. 2 to 4 failed to take any action on the petitioner’s representation dated 30.06.2018, wherein he sought appropriate action against the unofficial respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court seeking suitable directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, in the said representation, the petitioner had sought police protection. However, since the allegations made therein were civil in nature, and as a civil suit is already pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents in O.S. No. 180 of 2018 on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, no crime was registered. Consequently, no further action was deemed necessary. It is therefore contended that the allegation that the petitioner’s representation was not considered by the respondent-police authorities is factually incorrect and unfounded, and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The substance of the petitioner’s grievance is that the representation dated 30.06.2018 has not been acted upon, and consequently, police protection has not been extended. However, the explanation offered by the respondent police authorities reveals that the representation was indeed considered, and upon such consideration, the authorities exercised their discretion under the law not to register a case, since the dispute disclosed was of a purely civil nature. It is further stated that police protection was not extended as there was no order or direction from a competent court warranting such protection. In the circumstances, it appears that the respondent police authorities have acted reasonably and within the scope of their jurisdiction in dealing with the petitioner’s representation.

7. Nevertheless, if the petitioner remains aggrieved by the alleged non-registration of a crime or the non-extension of police protection, it is open to him to avail the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), or under the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387, has categorically held that when a person is aggrieved by the inaction or improper investigation of the police, the proper course is to invoke the remedies available under the Cr.P.C. (or corresponding provisions of BNSS), rather than invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless exceptional circumstances exist.

9. In view of the settled legal position and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances justifying invocation of this Court’s writ jurisdiction, the prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent-poli