##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.9868 OF 2026

DATE : 02.04.2026

Between:

M.Y.Maharishi and Another …Petitioners

AND

The State of Telangana and Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No. 5 in conducting fair and effective investigation on complaints Dated. 10-01-2025, 11-10-2025 and 15-03-2026 submitted by the Petitioners herein as illegal, arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to conduct fair and effective investigation

strictly in accordance with law, and pass.…”

2. None appeared for the petitioners.

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

Home.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a direction

##PAGE2##

2

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 principles laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The essence of the petitioners’ grievance is that, despite having submitted a written complaints dated 10.01.2025, 11.10.2025 and 15.03.2026, the concerned police authorities failed

to register a criminal case.

7. The legal position on this aspect is well settled. 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 does not lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Instead, the aggrieved person must avail the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”).

##PAGE3##

3

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 petitioners

##PAGE4##

4

are at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should their

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: 02.04.2026.

CHS

##PAGE5##

5

24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.9868 OF 2026

02.04.2026

CHS

Click Here to Read the rest of this document