The petitioner challenged the non-investigation into a criminal case registered in December 2011 via a writ petition. The High Court observed that four witnesses had been examined and held no ground for relief.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.5343 of 2012
Date : 12.03.2012
Between :
Gunda Siva Kumar.
…..Petitioner
And
The Station House Officer, Macherla town P.S. & others.
…..Respondents
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5343 of 2012
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not taking steps in Crime No.185 of 2011 on the file of Macherla Town Police Station, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Macherla, against respondents 2 to 10 herein, which is referred to the Police for investigation. Based on such reference, a case is registered in Crime No.185 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 423, 426, 447, 506 r/w.34 of IPC.
In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though the aforesaid crime was registered in the month of December 2011, no investigation is made into it.
Based on written instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents that in the aforesaid crime, four witnesses are already examined and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are also recorded and that the evidence collected so far has not made any prima facie case against the named accused in the aforesaid crime. It is stated that the investigation is in progress and the same will be completed as early as possible.
In view of the fact that the crime was registered only
in the month of December 2011 and four witnesses are already examined, it cannot be said that investigation is not made into the crime. In any event, if the petitioner is having any grievance, he can move the concerned Magistrate for appropriate directions to the investigating authority.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground for grant of directions as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th March 2012 ajr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure to conduct immediate investigation after registration of a criminal case provides a ground for granting directions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether sufficient investigation steps, including examination of witnesses, have been taken in the registered criminal case.
Gunda Siva Kumar
The Station House Officer, Macherla town P.S. & others
R. Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
