Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 regarding alleged delay in police investigation ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Magistrate. Court rejected writ remedy, directing approach to Magistrate for directions.
No direction to transfer investigation; parties directed to approach the Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 22966 of 2004
Between:
MR. PRAMOD HARJANI, S/o. Late Kanhayalal Harjani, R/o. 5-9-22/57, Roop Villa Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad 500 023.
... PETITIONER
AND
Santa Cruz, Mumbai.
Director, Mr. Lalit Khaitan, S/o. Not Known aged major,
Plot No. J-1, Block B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Area, Mathura Raod, New Delhi 110044.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in delaying the investigation into the Crime registered in F.I.r.No.651/2004 dated 26-08-2004 as arbitrary and illegal and further direct the 1st respondent herein to transfer the investigation into Crime registered with the SHO, Police Station, Saifabad, Lakadi-ka-pul, Hyderabad to the D.C.P. Detective Department, Central lCrime Station, Control Room, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JAVED RAZACK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME
The Court at the admission stage made the following : O R D E R:
The petitioner claims to have submitted a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. It is stated that on receiving the complaint, the learned Magistrate has referred the matter for investigation to the second respondent under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C., and that the second respondent in turn had registered Crime No.651/2004. He complains that though several months have elapsed, the second respondent has not taken any steps in the matter, much less has submitted a report to the concerned Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home.
The petitioner has availed the remedy under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate. Whenever a complaint is received by the Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., three courses are open to him, namely, a) to take cognizance of the offence, if he is satisfied after recording the sworn statement, b) to order investigation of the matter by a police official, or any other person authorized by him in this regard, or c) to enquire in to the matter by himself. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has chosen to refer the matter for investigation by the second respondent, under sub-section (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C.
Once the investigation is required to be undertaken in pursuance of an order passed by the Magistrate, it is not as if the Court loses control over the matter. If there is any lapse or laxity in the investigation, it can certainly be brought to the notice of the Magistrate. In the event of the Magistrate being satisfied that there was undue delay or lapse on the part of the investigating agency, he can pass appropriate orders in this regard, or even may choose to change the investigating agency. In that view of the matter, this Court is not at all inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the leaned Magistrate, before whom the complaint was made, and seek appropriate direction in this regard. There shall be no order as to costs.
10th December, 2004
Note: Issue copy in three days.
(B/o)
pan
To
High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene via writ when a Magistrate has ordered police investigation but there is alleged delay.
Whether this Court will entertain the writ petition given the availability of remedies before the Magistrate.
Whether the Magistrate has the power to direct changes in the investigating agency for undue delay.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Pramod Harjani
Commissioner of Police Basheerbagh, Hyderabad
Station House Officer, Police Station, Saifabad, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad
Mr. A. Jaipal Reddy
Mr. A. Raghava Reddy
Mr. Harmohan Singh Chandok
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
