Writ petition filed seeking direction to register FIR and investigate kidnapping and grievous injury allegations. Court directed Police to investigate complaint dated 13.02.2018 based on Lalita Kumari guidelines.
Directed the 3rd respondent (Police) to take action on the complaint dated 13-02-2018 and investigate the matter.
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 A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WP No.16940 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus
declaring the action of the respondents in not registering the
FIR and not proceeding with the investigation pursuant to the
complaint lodged by the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and for issuance of
consequential directions to the official respondents to register
FIR, to conduct investigation and proceed in a fair and
unbiased manner and take action in accordance with law.
along with others went to Peruru village and there they met
some more persons and all of them participated in the political
party activities with their leader Chandraseker Reddy till 3.30
pm and thereafter their leader Chandraseker Reddy went to
Ananthapur and the petitioner and others returned back to
their village and while he was at his house, the 4th
respondent along with others came to the house of the
petitioner, armed with deadly weapons and took the petitioner
forcefully in a jeep to nearby hillocks and abused him saying
2
why he and others are working with the said Chandraseker Reddy and against their interest. That the 4th respondent beat
him with a stick on his shoulder, as a result of which his hand got fractured, thereafter the other persons also beat him with sticks on head, legs, thighs and private parts and tried to kill him, and in that precarious condition, the 4th respondent and others took him to PS Ramagiri and took his signatures forcefully and against his consent on blank papers and thereafter, the petitioner was taken to hospital and got treated for the hand fracture and one Dr. Venkataraman treated him
and again brought the petitioner to village and left him warning with dire consequences, if he informs about what has happened to him at their hands to any one. Despite that the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent to lodge a complaint against the 4th respondent and others, but to the surprise of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent already registered a complaint against the said Chandrasekhar Reddy as if the petitioner lodged the complaint against the said
Chandrasekhar Reddy and the said Chandrasekhar Reddy kidnapped him and injured him and basing on such complaint, which the petitioner denies to have given, the 3rd
3
respondent registered a case in Cr.No.3 of 2018 against the said Chandrasekhar Reddy for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 324 and 506 r/w. Section 34 IPC.
respondent about the registration of case against the said Chandrasekhar Reddy by misusing the blank paper signed by him, which was taken forcefully by the 4th respondent, but the 3rd respondent refused to answer, then the petitioner stated to have approached the 2nd respondent, but to no avail. It is stated that the petitioner narrating all these aspects of the
matter, lodged a complaint with the 2nd respondent on 13–02–
2018, but till today the 3rd respondent has not registered FIR and taken up investigation, though the matter pertains to kidnap and causing grievous injuries to the petitioner by the 4th respondent and others. Hence, this writ petition.
of Police, PS Ramagiri, wherein the 3rd respondent denied the
involvement of the 4th respondent and others in the alleged kidnap of the petitioner and causing the petitioner grievous
injuries. It is stated that basing on the complaint of the petitioner himself lodged on 07–02– 2018, a case in Cr.No.3 of
4
2018 was registered and investigation is under progress and,
therefore, the question of not taking action on the complaint
made by the petitioner on 07–02–2018 does not arise. It is also stated that the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 1302-2018 was only invented for the reasons best known to the
petitioner since his complaint lodged on 07–02–2018 was already registered as Cr.No.3 of 2018 and investigation is in progress. It is also the case of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner himself has lodged the complaint on 07–02–2018
and at that time as he was injured, he was referred to the Government Hospital through PC 1609 for treatment, and as such no incident took place much less causing injury by the 4th respondent and others to the petitioner, as alleged by him
in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
proceed to investigate the complaint alleged to have been lodged by the petitioner on 07–02–2018 against one Chandrashekar Reddy on the ground that the said
Chandrashekar Reddy and others have kidnapped the
5
petitioner and caused injuries, when it is the specific case of
the petitioner that he was in-fact kidnapped by the 4th
respondent and others in a jeep to nearby hillocks and caused injuries, including fracture of his hand for working with the said Chandrasekhar Reddy. It is a matter of record that the said Chandrasekhar Reddy filed quash petition to quash the proceedings initiated against him by way of Crl.P.No.1804 of 2018 before this Court, however, this Court dismissed the said criminal petition against which, the said person approached Supreme Court by way of SLP being SLP (Crl.)No.2380 of 2018
and the Supreme Court stayed all further proceedings in Cr.No.3 of 2018 on the file of PS Ramagiri.
as the petitioner is stoutly denying that he never gave any complaint against the said Chandrasekhar Reddy muchless he assaulted him. Then the question that remains to be examined
is whether the complaint was lodged by some other person
impersonating the petitioner by misusing the blank papers, according to the petitioner, forcefully got signed by him by the
6
4th respondent and others, is a matter for investigation by the Police. The respondent-Police are also duty bound, as ordained
by the Supreme Court LALITHA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT
OF UTTAR PRADESH’1 s case to register FIR if on enquiry it discloses a cognizable offence. The petitioner now states that
he has lodged a complaint on 13-02-2018 narrating the illtreatment meted out against him on 07–02-2018 by the 4th respondent and others. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent and others named in the complaint have kidnapped him in a jeep to nearby hillocks and caused injuries, including fracture of his hand for working with the said Chandrasekhar Reddy, and such acts on the part of the 4th respondent and others, prima facie , being serious in nature and also being cognizable offence, the complaint dated 13-02-
2018 lodged by the petitioner requires to be investigated into and there is no justification on the part of the 3rd respondent
in not investigating the matter and proceed in accordance with
law.
directing the 3rd respondent to take action on the complaint of
the petitioner dated 13-02-2018 in the light of the guidelines 1 2014 (2) SCC 1
7
of the Supreme Court detailed in LALITHA KUMARI vs.
GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH’s case cited supra.
Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
Dated: 05-08-2018 NRG
8
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WP No.16940 of 2018
//WEB//
Dated: 05-08-2018
NRG
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Police failed to register an FIR and investigate the petitioner's complaint of kidnapping and grievous injury.
Whether the Petitioner's complaint dated 13-02-2018 requiring investigation into kidnapping and grievous injury.
Whether the Police were justified in not investigating the matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalitas Kumari vs. Government of Uttar PradeshReferred¶6
LALITHA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH
The Petitioner
Inspector of Police, PS Ramagiri
Government Pleader for Home
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
