IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.37350 OF 2025 DATE : 05.12.2025 Between:

S.Sri Latha …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana & Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in particular respondent No. 5, in not considering the petitioners representation dated 28/11/2025 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 5 to consider the representation dated 28-11-2025 as prescribed in the landmark judgment of Lalitha Kumari Vs State of U.P by the Honorable Apex court in the interest of justice

2. Heard Mr.Shiak Chand Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s representation dated 28.11.2025 has not been duly considered by the respondents/police authorities for registration of a criminal case against the unofficial respondents. He further submits that, as per his instructions, the concerned police authorities have, in fact, considered the representation but observed that the issue involved is civil in nature and accordingly closed the matter. He contends that the dispute is essentially of a commercial nature and places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. He also pleads that though he is aware of the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the process of approaching the learned Magistrate is time-consuming; hence, he has preferred this writ petition seeking a direction to register a case. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate orders.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, as per his instructions, the petitioner’s representation has been duly considered by the concerned police authorities and, upon preliminary examination, it was closed on the ground that the dispute involved is civil in nature. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his representation was not considered is unfounded. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner’s grievance is that his representation has not been registered as a criminal case. The explanation offered by the respondents/police authorities indicates that, upon examination, they decided not to register a case as the matter was found to be civil in nature. It is now well settled that where a petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of a case, the proper course is to avail the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS. Without exhausting such efficacious alternative remedies, filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for registration of a case simpliciter is not maintainable. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by 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]. Furthermore, the contention that approaching the Magistrate would be a time-consuming process cannot be accepted as an exceptional ground for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. Having regard to the factual position and considering that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. However, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the learned Magistrate