THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 keeping silent on the representation given by the Petitioner to the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Madhapur Zone, which was endorsed to Respondent No. 4 to take action, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the rules and also against principles of natural justice, consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to take immediate steps on the representation of the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders…”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition—namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case—is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 31.07.2017, the concerned Police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

6. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. 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 refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C., rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. In light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 23.09.2025 svl