Allowed

Mohd. Nizam v. The Deptuy Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC20 Mar 2012WP/6745/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the delay in filing a final report for Crime No. 135 of 2011, the Court directed Respondents to complete the investigation and file an appropriate final report within two months, finding investigation was already in progress.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to complete investigation in Crime No. 135 of 2011 and file final report within 2 months.

Mohd. Nizam Vs The Deptuy Commissioner of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6745 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under:

¶5

“For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in not initiating any action on the complaint registered under FIR.No.135/2011, dated 28.11.2011 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the official respondents to initiate action on the complaint registered under FIR.No.135/2011, dated 28.11.2011.”

¶6

Petitioner filed a complaint on 28.11.2011 before the second respondent – Inspector of Police, Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, who in turn, registered the same as a case in Crime No.135 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 379 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. In this Writ Petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though complaint was registered as early as on 28.11.2011, respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any steps to investigate the same so as to file a final report.

¶7

When the matter was listed on an earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 to obtain instructions. When the matter is taken up today, based on written instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that two witnesses were already examined and their statements have been recorded and the petitioner assured to produce some more witnesses but he failed to do so, and the matter is under investigation. It is also submitted that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the accused in O.S.No.1786 of 2011 on the file of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

As much as it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that two witnesses were already examined and their statements have been recorded and investigation is in progress, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 1 and 2 to complete the investigation in Crime No.135 of 2011 and to file appropriate final report before the competent Court, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶10

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8570 of 2012 also stands disposed of.

¶11

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20^th MARCH, 2012. kvni

Mohd. Nizam v. The Deptuy Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Nizam v. The Deptuy Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.D.R. Rayalu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kovuru Seshaiah, Vs Superintendent of Police

Chilka Swamy Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Police

Gorla Swarnamma Vs Mr. I.Bhaktavatsala Reddy

M/s. Brandix India Apparel City Private Limited., Vs The District Collector

Bommisetti Chiranjeevi Vs The State