1. 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 respondents herein in not taking cognizance of the complaint given by them on 7-6- 2014 seeking to take action against the Transport officials who are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the land to an extgent of Ac.6.00 gts in Sy.No.471 of Turkayamjal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by using force to take further action against the officials of the Transport department for abusing them by using their caste name, under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 as illegal and is in violation of procedure contemplated under the provisions of the said Act and consequently direct the respondents to take action on the complaint made on 76- 2014 made by the petitioners and pass such other orderor orders as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ”

2. None appeared for the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits 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 essence of the petitioners’ grievance is that, despite having submitted a written complaint dated 07.06.2014, the concerned police authorities failed to register a criminal case.

7. The legal position on this aspect is well settled. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where a grievance pertains to the refusal or failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the proper and efficacious remedy does not lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Instead, the aggrieved person must avail the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”).

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judgments. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that when an aggrieved person’s grievance arises from police inaction in registering a case, the appropriate course is to avail remedies provided under the Cr.P.C.. The Court further clarified that directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, without exhausting such statutory remedies, is impermissible except in rare or exceptional circumstances warranting immediate intervention.

9. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances in the present case that would justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court holds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C. provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioners are at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should their grievance still persist.

10. Accordingly, with the above noted liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.