THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.40421 OF 2016

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in not taking action against the respondent Nos.4 to 7 inspite of the written complaint dt.08.09.2016 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to act upon the complaint dt.08.09.2016 and take action against the respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein in accordance with law, and to pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...”

2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the substance of the petitioner’s prayer amounts to a request for registration of a criminal case pursuant to his representation dated 08.09.2016. It is, however, a well-settled principle of law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained solely for the purpose of seeking a direction to register a crime, without exhausting effective and adequate statutory remedies available under law.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The petitioner’s grievance is that the concerned police authorities failed to register a case pursuant to his representations dated 08.09.2016. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where the police fail to register a complaint, the complainant has adequate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

7. In such situation, the proper course is to first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., and thereafter, if necessary, to move the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Similar procedural safeguards have now been incorporated in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (for short, “BNSS”).

8. This legal position has been consistently reaffirmed. In M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki (AIR 2020 SC 387), the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again clarified that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed solely for the purpose of seeking registration of an FIR, is not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedies available. Following the same principle, this Court, in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana (2019 SCC OnLine TS 3491), held that such writ petitions are not maintainable without first exhausting the alternative remedies provided under law.

9. In light of these settled principles, the present petition is held to be not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the competent court, in accordance with law.

10. With this observation, this petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 19.08.2025.

KRL