THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 6435 OF 2017

O R D E R:

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

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of ‘Writ of Mandamus’, declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in registering the crime against the respondents 4 and 5 on the complaints dated 01-12-2014 and 26-10-2015 filed by the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of mandatory provision of Cr.P.C. and consequently direct the respondents to register the complaint by conducting investigation and pass such other orders…” 2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 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. As per the petitioner, he has filed the impugned written complaint on 01.12.2014 against respondent Nos.4 and 5. In addition, on

26.10.2015 another representation was filed seeking fresh enquiry/investigation against respondent Nos.4 and 5. That apart, the petitioner admits that on 17.10.2016 a report was submitted to an RTI application, the petitioner came to know that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are running their office on rent basis and no such complaints were filed against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In such position, the present petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to register a crime and conduct fresh enquiry.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaints dated 01.12.2014 and 26.10.2015, 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.

7. 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.”) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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: 20.08.2025 svl