ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “Issue a writ or an order or a direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3 rd and 4 th respondents failing to register an FIR against the offenders named in the complaints dated 09.07.2018, 12.07.2018 and 20.07.2018 filed by them as arbitrary, capricious and unlawful with a consequential direction to the 3 rd and 4 th respondents to register the FIR against the offenders named in the complaints by undertaking investigation on the complaints….” 2. Ms. C. Manisha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Eranki Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in registering a crime based on the complaints dated 09.07.2018, 12.07.2018, and 20.07.2018, and seeking a direction to the respondent police authorities to register an FIR against the alleged offenders. 3.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the representation dated 09.07.2018, received through registered post, referred to the pendency of a civil suit, viz., O.S. No. 1457 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and alleged that certain persons had attempted to trespass into the petitioners’ land. It is further submitted that, in view of earlier crimes registered by the complainants/official respondents, which are still under investigation, and considering that civil disputes between the parties are already pending, a fresh FIR was not registered. He also clarifies that the communications dated 12.07.2018 and 20.07.2018, as pleaded by the petitioners, were never received by the police authorities. 3.2. He further submits that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged non-registration of a crime, they ought to have availed the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). The legal position on this issue is well settled that without exhausting the remedies available under the Cr.P.C. (or the corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, a prayer for a direction to register a crime under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. I have perused the material available on record. 5. Accordingly, he prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. I have perused the material available on record. 5. The substance of the petitioners’ grievance is that their representations dated 09.07.2018, 12.07.2018, and 20.07.2018 were not acted upon by the respondent police authorities. However, the legal position in this regard is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC 907 and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, AIR 2020 SC 387, has categorically held that a writ petition seeking a direction for registration of a crime is not maintainable unless the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C. (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) have been exhausted, except in exceptional circumstances. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners have not availed such remedies, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting interference, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought, namely, a direction for registration of crimes simpliciter is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, while reserving the liberty of the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law, if the cause of action still survives, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall stand closed.