[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Dhanishetty Thirumala vs The State Of Telangana on 7 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.6024 of 2026
Date: 07.04.2026
Between:
Dhanishetty Thirumala
..Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad
and five others
..Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to declare the
action of respondent No.2 in not registering the crime against
respondent Nos.3 to 6 pursuant to the petitioner's complaint,
dated 12.12.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles
14, 19 (1) (a) (d) and (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently, prayed for other appropriate reliefs.
2. Heard Sri Phanindra Bhargav, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Home, appearing for the official respondents and Sri
EVV, J
2 Wp_6024_2026
Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
unofficial respondents. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land
admeasuring Ac.0.464 guntas in Sy.No.3 situated at
Mamidipalli Sivar, Mancherial District and she has been
cultivating the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
further submit that the petitioner lodged a complaint, dated
04.12.2025 stating that the unofficial respondents and others
have unlawfully trespassed into her land without her consent,
abused her and threatened her with dire consequences. They
also damaged the framing equipment, pipes and starter box.
The grievance of the petitioner is that, even after receipt of the
said complaint, the respondent-police did not take any action
on the said complaint. Therefore, he prays this Court to pass
appropriate orders.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing
on the written instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Dandepally Police Station, Ramagundam
Commissionerate, would submit that, pursuant to the
complaint made by the petitioner, G.D. entry was made and
EVV, J
3 Wp_6024_2026
after conducting enquiry respondent No.2 closed the said
complaint as "civil in nature" and the said information was
communicated to the petitioner through Petition Management
System and nothing remains in this writ petition to adjudicate
further.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents
would submit that the subject matter is already pending before
the civil Court vide O.S.No.26 of 2025 on the file of the Junior
Civil Judge, Luxettipet. Therefore, the respondent-police have
rightly closed the complaint lodged by the petitioner.
6. Admittedly, civil disputes are pending against the
petitioner and the unofficial respondents vide O.S.No.26 of
2025 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet. In Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P. 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing
with the powers of the Court to issue a writ of mandamus,
directed the police to register an F.I.R. and held as under:-
"25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often
find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not
been registered at the police station and/or a proper
investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the
High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section
2008 (1) SCC(CRI) 440
EVV, J
4 Wp_6024_2026
482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should
not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to
interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his
alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section
36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of
no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate
under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been
registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach
the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or
other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite
approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred
to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can
approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of
rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of
filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then
should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained
when there are so many alternative remedies?"
7. Recently, in M.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki
and another 2 the Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon its
judgment in Sakiri Vasu (1 supra), held as under:-
"5. While it is not possible to accept the contention of the
appellants on the question of locus standi, we are inclined to
accept the contention that the High Court could not have
directed the registration of F.I.R. with a direction to the police to
investigate and file the final report."
(2020) 16 SCC 728
EVV, J
5 Wp_6024_2026
8. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court referred
supra, it is clear that, two options are available to the petitioner.
One is to follow the procedure under Section 175 of B.N.S.S.
and the other is alternatively to file a private complaint before
the jurisdictional Magistrate by following the procedure under
the B.N.S.S. If an alternative remedy is available to file a
private complaint, this Court cannot issue any direction by way
of a Mandamus. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving
it open to the petitioner to work out the remedies as available
under law.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed. No costs.
_____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
07.04.2026
gkv
