IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.8811 OF 2020 DATE : 09.03.2026 Between:

G.Mahesh Kumar …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in not registering F.I.R. pursuant to the complaint dated 29/05/2020 of the Petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent to forthwith register FIR and take action against the Respondent No. 4 and be pleased to pass.…”

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

4. The 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 without availing the other statutory remedies, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner’s grievance is that, despite having submitted a written complaint dated 29.05.2020, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case.

7. The legal position on this issue is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where a grievance pertains to the refusal or failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the proper and efficacious remedy lies not in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but in pursuing the statutory mechanisms provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). The Court emphasized that the Cr.P.C. constitutes a complete code providing adequate remedies to an aggrieved person, including recourse to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judgments. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that when an aggrieved person’s grievance arises from police inaction in registering a case, the appropriate course is to avail remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the competent Magistrate for a direction to register an FIR, or instituting a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Court further clarified that directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, without exhausting such statutory remedies, is impermissible except in rare or exceptional circumstances warranting immediate intervention.

9. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances in the present case that would justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court holds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C. provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should his grievance still persist.

10. Accordingly, with the above noted liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_________________

N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 09.03.2026.

CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.8811 OF 2020

09.03.2026 CHS