Telangana High Court
Shaik Abdul Khader Bin Omer Alamoodi vs The State Of Telangana on 20 November, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.39164 OF 2018
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the
nature of Mandamus declaring the action of official
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 more particularly the
respondent No.3 in not registering FIR against the
unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 8 in pursuance of the
petitioner's written complaint dated 19.09.2018 as
arbitrary, discriminatory, highhanded and ex-facie
illegal, dereliction of duty and also violation of Article
14 of the Constitution of India as well as against the
legal ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Lalitha
Kumari judgment and consequently may direct the
respondent No.3 to register FIR against the unofficial
respondent Nos.4 to 8 in pursuance of the petitioner's
written complaint dated 19.09.2018 with an immediate
effect, in the interest of justice and to pass such other
order or orders..."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, due to the
inaction of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in registering a crime based on
the report filed by the petitioner dated 19.09.2018, the present
writ petition has been instituted seeking appropriate directions
from this Court.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home,
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that the
petitioner's representation dated 19.09.2018 was duly
considered, and an entry was made in the General Diary on the
same date. Upon verification, it was found that the dispute raised
by the petitioner is civil in nature. Accordingly, the representation
was closed, advising the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies
under civil law. It is further submitted that if the petitioner was
aggrieved by the non-registration of a case, he ought to have
availed the statutory remedies available under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.").
4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.
5. The essence of the petitioner's grievance is that, upon
submission of the written report, the concerned police failed to
register a crime. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner
has not availed the statutory remedies provided under the
Cr.P.C., now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, following the alleged inaction. The explanation
offered by the respondents shows that, upon consideration of the
averments in the report, the police exercised their discretion in
treating the matter as civil in nature and deciding not to register a
case. If the petitioner was aggrieved by such action or inaction,
the appropriate course would have been to pursue the remedies
available under the Cr.P.C.; however, the petitioner failed to do
so.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907) and 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, seeking
a direction for registration of a crime, is not maintainable without
first exhausting the efficacious alternative remedies available
under the Cr.P.C. In the absence of any extraordinary or
exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article
226, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present writ
petition.
7. Accordingly, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail
appropriate remedies available under law, if the cause of action
still survives, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 20.11.2025
MRKR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.39164 OF 2018
20.11.2025
MRKR
