THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.16392 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 any order or orders writ or Writs or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.6 to 8 in not taking any action on representation Dt.11-05-2016 of the petitioners Association is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India...”

2. I have heard Mr.Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, owing to the acts allegedly committed by respondent Nos. 6 to 8, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.05.2016 before the competent authorities. However, as the said representation was neither considered nor acted upon, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions.

4. In response, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contends that the substance of the petitioner’s prayer is, in effect, a request for registration of a criminal case pursuant to his representation dated 11.05.2016. It is, however, a well-settled principle of law that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained for the purpose of seeking a direction for registration of a crime, without first exhausting the adequate and efficacious statutory remedies available under the law.

5. I have carefully perused the materials placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner essentially relates to the inaction of the concerned police authorities in registering a case based on his representation dated 11.05.2016. The issue raised herein is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (AIR 2008 SC 907), has categorically held that where the police fail to register a complaint, the complainant is not left remediless, as adequate statutory remedies are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”).

7. Specifically, Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. provides that, in the event of refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to register a First Information Report (‘FIR’), the aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police with the substance of such information. Further, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the complainant may seek appropriate directions from the jurisdictional Magistrate for investigation. These procedural safeguards have been retained, with appropriate modifications, under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (‘BNSS’).

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

9. In light of the settled legal principles and consistent judicial pronouncements and in the absence of any exceptional circumstance, this Court holds that the present writ petition is not maintainable. Nonetheless, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedies provided under law, before the competent forum.

10. With this observation, this Writ 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