Telangana High Court
Sri.G.Raghupathi, vs The State Of Telangana, on 4 November, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.33532 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 on the petitioner Written complaints dt.21-09-2016, 05-09-2016, 04-08-2016 and 02-06-2015 for grant of Police Aid to protect the petitioner and his possession of Plot bearing H.No.16-2- 751/93/A/2/1/C, an extent of 208 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.47, situated at Sairam Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad, pursuant to Decree and Judgment dt.05-11- 2014 in A.S.No.9 of 2013 passed by the Hon'ble II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as highly illegal, irregular and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to protect the petitioner and his possession and enjoyment over the plot H.No.16- 2- 751/93/A/2/1/C, an extent of 208 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.47, situated at Sairam Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad by preventing the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 from in any manner basing on the petitioner written complaints dt.21-09-2016, 05-09-2016, 04-08-2016 and 02-06-2015 and to pass..."
2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits, on instructions, that no crime has been registered on the written representations submitted by the petitioner, as the subject matter pertains to a purely civil dispute. It is further submitted that no direction has been issued either by the competent civil court or by the higher police authorities for extending police aid 2 in this regard. Hence, the petitioner ought to have availed the appropriate civil remedies available under law rather than invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. I have perused the material placed on record.
6. The petitioner contends that despite submitting written complaints, the respondent police authorities failed to register a crime or extend police protection, thereby neglecting their statutory duty. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner, in essence, pertains to the non-registration of a criminal case based on his complaints.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, and reaffirmed in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387, has categorically held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for seeking directions to register a criminal case without first exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), namely, by approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or by filing a private complaint under Section 156(3) before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
3
8. In light of the settled legal position and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to register a crime is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his grievance still survives.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 04.11.2025 Js 4 4239 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.33532 OF 2016 Dated: 04.11.2025 Js