K. Sukeshini Rani , vs The State Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 6290 Tel

Telangana High Court

K. Sukeshini Rani , vs The State Of Telangana, on 4 November, 2025

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

              WRIT PETITION No.14366 OF 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

"...to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No.3 for not considering the complaint made by the petitioner dated. 01-11-2017 against the illegal action made by the respondent No.4 and declare the action of the respondent as a illegal, arbitrary, against the law and violation of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Indian and to pass....."

2. None appears for the petitioner.

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

Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits

that, upon receipt of the petitioner's representation, a General

Diary (GD) entry was made on 01.11.2017, and upon enquiry, it

was found that the matter was civil in nature. Accordingly, the

police authorities exercised their discretion not to register a case,

as the issue did not disclose any cognizable offence. It is therefore

submitted that the contention of the petitioner is unfounded.

However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of a

case, he ought to have availed the appropriate statutory remedies

available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.").

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite

submitting a written complaint dated 01.11.2017, the concerned

police authorities failed to register a criminal case. The legal

position governing such situations 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 a First Information Report (FIR),

the proper 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 an adequate and

efficacious statutory mechanism to redress such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgments. Notably, in M.

Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387, a Three-

Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved person must avail the

remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., rather than directly

invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. In view of the settled legal position, and in the absence of

any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the relief sought by the

petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under

the Cr.P.C. (or under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023, as applicable) provides sufficient and efficacious remedies

before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty

to pursue in accordance with law, if the grievance still survives.

9. Accordingly, with the above noted liberty, 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

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.14366 OF 2018

Dated: 04.11.2025

Js