Telangana High Court
Cheella Karthik, vs State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.14919 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"...to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in not registering
the crime and not taking any action against respondent No.5
is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of
natural justice and consequently direct respondent No.4 to
take immediate steps to register the crime and further
produce the wife of the petitioner namely Sanjana who is in
the custody of respondent No.5 to the custody of petitioner
and 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
that, the representation of the petitioner has been received by
the respondent police authorities and after preliminary enquiry
the same was closed, as there was no substantive material. It
is further submitted that if the petitioner was still aggrieved, he
ought to have availed the statutory remedies provided under
law. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contends 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
submission of a written complaint dated 12.04.2018, the
concerned police authorities failed to register a case.
7. The explanation offered by the respondent police
authorities is demonstrating that they have exercised their
jurisdictional discretion in registering the Crime after making
preliminary enquiry, as such, the representation has not been
acted upon by the respondent police authorities, is unfounded.
Nonetheless, 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
