Dismissed

M/s.Adhunik Transport Organisation Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Aug 2021WP/12768/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition wherein a logistics company sought a declaration that the police's refusal to register an F.I.R. for theft was illegal. The court held that such writ petitions are not maintainable and dismissed it as not maintainable, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is at liberty to pursue other legal remedies available under law.

M/s.Adhunik Transport Organisation Limited… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.12768 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the action of the respondents in not registering the crime relating to the offence of theft of electronic goods that took place within the limits of the police station of 4^th respondent, as illegal and violative of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and consequently sought direction to the respondents to register the F.I.R. in respect of the said offence as per the report given on 22.06.2021 to the 2^nd respondent-Superintendent of Police.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶5

The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:-

¶6

The petitioner is a company registered in the name and style of “M/s. Adhunik Transport Organisation Limited”. Its branch office is situated at Secunderabad, which is represented by its Branch Manager.

¶7

The petitioner company is doing business in logistics and its services are engaged for transporting electronic goods from Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh to Bhiwandi in Maharashtra State. Accordingly, when a lorry bearing No.GJ 15 AT 3382 which was loaded with 16 pellets of MI 43 TVs of the petitioner company left from Renigunta on 17-06-2021 and reached first tollgate of Jodi Dharmapura Cross on 18-06-2021 at about 01:24 hours and halted there till 4-00 P.M. and again when the lorry started and reached Pathikonda at about 9-00 A.M. and started there and reached

¶8

¶9

Siruguppa Filling Station for filling fuel, the driver did not check the seal either at Pathikonda or at Siruguppa. When he reached Dhaba in Bijapur on 19-06-2021, he noticed that the seal was broken and on opening the door, he found two pellets containing TVs were missing, which are 47 in number. He came back to Pathikonda where he halted for six hours for sleeping. He lodged a report with Station House Officer of Pathikonda Police Station, Kurnool District regarding theft of the said electronic goods. However, the 4^th respondent refused to register the crime stating that there is no evidence to show that the offence took place within his jurisdiction. Therefore, a report was given on the website of Andhra Pradesh Police called “Spandana” on 25-06-2021. The Superintendent of Police endorsed on it directing the 3^rd respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police to take action as per law. Yet, no crime is registered in this regard. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed questioning the said inaction on the part of the respondent-police officials in not registering the F.I.R. and sought the aforesaid declaration and direction.

¶10

Counter-affidavit on behalf of the 4^th respondent-Station House Officer of Pathikonda Police Station, was filed on behalf of the respondents. At Para No.4 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated as mentioned below:

¶11

“It is submitted on information given by the Driver of the lorry I left P.S. and reached Pattikonda – Adoni road side situated near Siddam fuel filling station in the outskirts of Pattikonda town at a distance of about 1.5 kms west from Pattikonda P.S. and found it is very busy road. I verified the CC footage which was fitted in Siddam fuel filling station (Bharat Petrol Bunk). I found the parking of the lorry by the side of the road on 18-06-2021 at about 09:00 am to 03:00 pm. As per CC footage the lorry was left Pattikonda on 18-06-2021 at 15:02:27 hours. Nothing was found to be happened on the backside of the Lorry which is having seal and locks of the closed container lorry bearing Registration

¶12

¶13

number GJ15AT3382. Then I left Bharat Fuel filling station Pattikonda and reached Ambedkar Circle situated on 4 road junction in the outskirts of Aspari village i.e., Kurnool – Bellary road and Pattikonda – Adoni road. I verified the CC footages which were fitted near the Ambedkar Circle on minute verification of the passing of lorry bearing registration number GJ15AT3382 on 18-06-2021 at 15:46:18 hours the closed container lorry proceeded towards Adoni side. I found the closed container which was locked and sealed on the backside of the container. It is scientifically proved that the offence was not took place at Pattikonda in between 09:00 am to 03:00 pm. The seals and locks are intact while the lorry was passing towards Adoni through Aspari 4 road junction. The same was informed to the Driver of the lorry by showing the CC footage visuals with information to lodge the complaint in the Police station where he noticed the broken seals and locks for registering the case by the concerned police officers.”

¶14

Therefore, it is the version of the respondent-police officials, that when an enquiry was conducted by the police, as per the direction given by the Superintendent of Police, with reference to the CCTV footages, at the scene of offence, it was found that no offence of theft, as alleged, has taken place.

¶15

Therefore, it is now evident from the aforesaid counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-police officials that as per the enquiry made in this regard, by the Inspector of Police, as it is found that no offence as alleged, was committed at the scene of offence within his jurisdiction, that the police did not register the case.

¶16

Therefore, it cannot be said in the said facts and circumstances of the case that there has been inaction on the part of the respondent-police officials in responding to the report that was lodged on behalf of the petitioner company in this regard.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when a report discloses commission of a cognizable offence, that the police

¶18

¶19

have to first register the F.I.R. and then investigate and as they did not register any such F.I.R., even if any investigation is made as alleged in the counter-affidavit, that the same is not valid under law.

¶20

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that it is not the investigation that was done by the 4^th respondent and it is only an enquiry that was made pursuant to the direction by the Superintendent of Police and as his enquiry revealed that no offence of theft as alleged has taken place within his jurisdiction, that no F.I.R. was registered.

¶21

A perusal of the counter-affidavit also discloses that only an enquiry was caused pursuant to the direction be given by the Superintendent of Police and the said enquiry revealed that no such offence as alleged by the petitioner took place as per the CCTV footages that was collected at the scene of offence. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there has been any inaction on the part of the respondent-police officials in responding to the report that was lodged on behalf of the petitioner company. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved in this regard, he has to pursue his other remedies available as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶22

It is well settled law now that a writ petition seeking direction to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable and the petitioner has to exhaust his other remedies available to him as per the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch, dated 30.07.2020, based on the earlier judgments of the Honourable Apex Court held that when the grievance of the writ petitioner is that F.I.R. was not registered on the basis of the report that was lodged by him, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition and

¶23

¶24

he has to exhaust other remedies available to him under the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court has also explained the distinction relating to the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.¹ case in this regard.

¶25