Telangana High Court
Sri V Y Ratnam vs The State Of Telangana on 21 November, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.38371 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the Station House Officer,
Abids Road, Police Station, 4th Respondent in not registering the
F.I.R. against 5th Respondent and his associates despite in the
enquiry conducted by him, it is found that after the Civil Court
passed Judgment granting perpetual injunction restraining 5th
respondent and his associates from dealing with the affairs of
Centenary, 5th Respondent withdrew huge sums of money
without rendering the account as being arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct 4th respondent to register the case against
5th respondent and associates in terms of the complaint made by
the petitioner and take action as per the procedure contemplated
under law in the interest of justice, and issue such other writ or
order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances
of case."
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 and
Ms.P.Padmaja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits
that the contention of the petitioner regarding non-registration of
the crime is unfounded, inasmuch as the respondent police
authorities, after duly considering the averments made in the
petitioner's representation, opined that the dispute is civil in
nature and, therefore, did not register a criminal case. It is
further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No.
33215 of 2018 seeking a similar direction for registration of a
crime, and this Court, by order dated 04.10.2018, dismissed the
said writ petition, observing that the allegations raised therein
were of a civil nature. Despite the same, the petitioner has again
approached this Court with identical averments. Hence, the
contention that the respondent police authorities failed to
consider the petitioner's representation is untenable. It is further
submitted that, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he ought to
have availed the statutory remedies available under the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (BNSS), as the case may be. Accordingly, dismissal of the
writ petition is prayed for.
5. I have perused the material placed on record.
6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite
submitting a written complaint, the concerned police authorities
failed to register a case. Having considered the explanation
offered by the respondent police authorities, it is evident that
they exercised their jurisdictional discretion in concluding that
the dispute is civil in nature and, therefore, did not register a
crime. Nonetheless, if the petitioner remains aggrieved, he is at
liberty to avail appropriate statutory or civil remedies as
permissible under law.
7. 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.
8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgments. Notably, in
M. Subramaniam vs. 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.
9. In light of the settled legal position, and in the absence of
any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting
intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by
the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework
under the Cr.P.C./BNSS provides efficacious remedies before the
competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue
in accordance with law, if their grievance still survives.
10. 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: 21.11.2025
dpm
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.38371 OF 2018
Dated: 21.11.2025
dpm
