Telangana High Court
Renikindi Ashok vs The State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.13154 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the action of the Respondent No.4 in not registering a F.I.R.
against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 pursuant to the
complaint given by the petitioner on 22.03.2018 as illegal,
arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct 4th
respondent to register a F.I.R. against the respondent Nos.5
and 6 pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner on
22.03.2018 and prosecute accused in accordance with law
and pass..."
2. Heard Mr. G.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1
to 4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant
to the petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2018, the
respondent police authorities failed to register a crime/FIR.
Accordingly, learned counsel prays for issuance of an
appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or
the officer concerned to ensure registration of a case in
accordance with law.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits
that the petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2018 was duly
considered by the respondent authorities. Upon such
consideration, it was found that the subject matter of the
complaint pertains to a civil dispute, and therefore, no
cognizable offence was made out warranting registration of an
FIR. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to avail
appropriate civil remedies before the competent forum. It is
therefore contended that the allegation of inaction or non-
registration of a crime on the part of the police authorities is
factually unfounded. It is further submitted that, if the
petitioner was still aggrieved by the action of the police, he
ought to have availed the statutory remedies provided under
law and seeking a direction to compel the police to register a
criminal case, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in view of the well-settled 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
submission of a written complaint dated 22.03.2018, the
concerned police authorities failed to register a case.
7. The statement of the respondent police authorities is
demonstrating that the representation of the petitioner has
been considered and of exercising their jurisdictional
discretion, crime has not been registered, as such, the
contention of the petitioner that the representation has not
been acted upon by the respondent police authorities cannot
be acceptable. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he
ought to have availed appropriate remedies available under
law.
8. 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 appropriate remedy is not to
invoke 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 for redressal of such
grievances.
9. 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 statutory remedies provided under the Cr.P.C.,
including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or
200, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court.
10. In view 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.
11. Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty, this 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: 25.11.2025
dpm
