IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI DATE: 09.02.2026 Between :

Syed Abdul Majeed … Petitioner AND The Sub Inspector of Police, Pahadishareef, Hyderabad, and four others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

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

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in not registering the case against the respondents 2 to 4 herein in pursuance of my complaint is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to register the case against the respondents 2 to 4 forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper.”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home 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, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked as a substitute for the statutory mechanism provided under criminal law for redressal of such grievances. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have perused the material available on record.

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submitting the representation dated 15.10.2013, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case.

6. The legal position governing the issue is well settled. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where the grievance pertains to the failure of the police to register an FIR, the appropriate remedy does not lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the Cr.P.C. provides a complete, efficacious, and statutory mechanism particularly under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 190 enabling an aggrieved person to seek appropriate relief before the competent Magistrate.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., and that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked by bypassing such statutory remedies, except in exceptional circumstances.

8. In light of the aforesaid settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C., and now under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should his grievance persist.

9. Accordingly, with the above liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 09.02.2026 svl