Telangana High Court
R. Madhu Sudhan Raju, vs The State Of Telangana , Represented By ... on 20 November, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.26960 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd
respondent in not registering the crime against 4th respondent as
per the report made by the petitioner dated 05.07.2018 under
petition received at the Police Station on 07.07.2018 under
petition ID 070718/00714 nor recording the statement of the
petitioner as per law in vogue under criminal law as well as the
verdict of the apex court in Lalitha Kumari V/s. State as well as
abuse of power of Police consequentially, direct 3rd respondent to
register a crime basing on the report made by the petitioner
dated 05.07.2018 under petition ID 070718/00714 by recording
the statement of the petitioner as per law forthwith and to
pass..."
2. Heard Mr. V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant
to the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2018, the
respondent police authorities failed to register a crime/FIR.
Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for issuance of an
appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or the
officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits
that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, a
direction 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 grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite
submitting a written complaint dated 05.07.2018, the concerned
police authorities failed to register a case. The legal position
governing such matters is well settled. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of
U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
categorically held that when 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. The Court emphasized that the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("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 party must avail the
remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., rather than directly
invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
8. In light of the settled legal position, and in the absence of
any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting
interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained.
The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C. / Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides sufficient and efficacious
remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is
at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, if his 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: 20.11.2025
dpm
