Telangana High Court
Yedla Satyanarayana vs The State Of Telangana on 23 September, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No. 23658 OF 2017
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
".....to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent 3 for not taking any action by over the complaint made by the petitioner dated 12.06.2017 thereby providing Police protection to this petitioner for implementation the judgment and decree passed in 0.S.No.1160/2012 dated 02.01.2017 by Hon'ble II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, At L.B.Nagar and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of C.P.C, IPC and Criminal Procedure Code and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case...."
2. Heard Ms. Divya Agarwal, learned counsel representing Mr.Suresh Shiva Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police failed to register a crime on the basis of the report dated 12.06.2017 and also failed to provide protection for implementation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1160 of 2012, dated 02.01.2017, by the Court of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. Aggrieved 2 thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the police received the report dated 12.06.2017 and, upon consideration of the averments therein, found the matter to be civil in nature and accordingly closed the report. He further submits that insofar as implementation of the decree is concerned, the proper course for the petitioner is to approach the Execution Court, as is the settled legal position in law.
5. I have perused the materials on record.
6. The contention as to registration of the crime basing upon the report appears to be properly addressed by the Police authorities. However, the petitioner is still aggrieved by the inaction as to registration of the crime. The petitioner ought to have availed effective alternative remedies provided under Code of Criminal Procedure(Cr.P.C)/ BNSS to seek redressal of the grievance and without such action invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and without exhausting alternative remedies is contrary to the dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. In Sakiri Vasu v. 3 State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907) 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.
7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387) 2, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
8. In the light of this said legal preposition and in the absence of any extra ordinary circumstances, this prayer stands not maintainable. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the Police should have provided protection in the pursuance of the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.1160 of 2012. In this regard, this court in Writ 1 AIR 2008 SC 907 2 AIR 2020 SC 387 4 Petition No.8699 of 2025, dated 13.06.2025, held that the petitioner without showing this steps taken for enforcing the decree and Judgment in a civil suit by filing the appropriate execution petition seeking for Police aid for an implementation of Judgment and decree under article 226 of the constitution is not maintainable.
9. In the present case, apart from the plea that the police ought to have provided protection in terms of the decree passed by the civil court, the petitioner has not pleaded or demonstrated any steps taken for execution of the said decree. In the absence of the petitioner having availed appropriate execution proceedings, seeking police aid directly through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not legally sustainable. For this reason, the prayer made in the writ petition also falls short of warranting relief from this Court.
10. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the rights of the petitioner are reserved to avail appropriate remedies before the competent civil court, if the cause of action still survives. There shall be no order as to costs.
5
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 23.09.2025 PAV/NIT