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
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.
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
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.33532 OF 2016
Dated: 04.11.2025
Js
