A writ petition by complainants alleged non-registration of a crime by the Station House Officer. The High Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner has an available statutory remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code.
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.
HIGH COURT FOR THE S'I r.o"",,i 6l5,Pjj|,'tfJf,flTi Ar HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE ru B E R ,* o * o rlX'fi B ifJ iofi EDNET.'E
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
Between:
WRIT P ETITION NO:100600F 2020
AND
1 The State of reranoana. Department of Home, Rep. by its principar secretary, Secretariat. Hvderibacl'
,,.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed action of the Respondent No.2 in not registerlng the case and investigating the matter in pursuance to the complaint dated.23.06.2020 and the Respondent No.3 to 5 who are not instructing or initiating any proceedings against the Respondent No.2 and 7 is as arbitrary, unjust, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, and Violative of Article 14,21 and 3004 of Constitution of lndia.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to take action against the accused persons referred therein rn the complaint dated 23.06.2020 and take necessary action in accordance with law duly investigating the matter pending disposal of l,4ain Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. LAKSHMI KANTH
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ; AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: AGP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.7: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLESRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT ON o.1()060OF2o20
ORDER:
Heard learnedcounsei for the petitioners, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for Home appearingfor respondents lto 4 and learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 5 and 6.
"34. tlaving regard to larv propounded by Supreme Court, it is no more open for any one to contend that unless a report is filed aggrieved person is without remedy. It is also no more open to contend that once crime is registered accused must be arrested and charge sheet/final report must be filed as a matter of course. Further, delay in completing the investigation can be for various reasons. Police may be waiting for forensic report/Medical report/the accused is absconding/ having regard to complex
2019 (3) ALT 139
I
nature of crimc reported more tinte is cor.tsumed to collect required data f informatton to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or witnesses are more. While determtnrng dela), it is necessary to consider each case on its facts having regard to attending circumstances including nature of olfence, number of accused and witnesses etc [Mahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar Appeal (Civil) No. tO38 of 2001 dated 12.10.20011. The jurisdictional Magistrate shall have all material facts in issue at his command to assess the issue and shall be competent to go into all aspects when matters are brought before him and to take appropriate decision. It is also within the competence of superior officers to assess the conduct of Station House Officer and to take remedial action whenever there is deliberate and unexplained delay in investigation and filing of final report."
M.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and another2. In thc saicl judgmcnt, tlrc Hon'ble Supreme Court aflirmcd the vicw takcn by tl-re Suprcme CoLlrt in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 and Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahana. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the opinion exprcssed in Sakiri Vasu. In Sakiri Vasu, the Supremc Court held as under:
"17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is rlide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. "
t 2020 scc onlinc s.c. 34l 3 (2008) 2 SCC 409 I (2006) I SCC 627
L
I
1
it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution."
SD/. B. SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGIS
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIO OFFICER
To,
(
HIGH COURT
DATED:0311212020
S T4
1 r{L
z
co 11 DEC 2U0
.(-
ORDER
W.P.No.10060 of 2020
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
7dD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing registration of an FIR for alleged cognizable crime.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an effective remedy for non-registration of a crime when Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is available.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Raju Saini v. State of Telangana and OthersFollowed¶29
Govind Raju Saini v. State of Telangana and Others, 2019 (3) ALT 139
Mahender Lal Das v. State of BiharFollowed¶30
Mahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar, Appeal (Civil) No. 1038 of 2001 dated 12.10.2001
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar PradeshFollowed¶34
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 1 SCC 627 · Who else cites this
M.Subramaniam and Another v. S.Janaki and AnotherFollowed¶34
M.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and another, 2020 SCC Onl SC 341 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq JahanaFollowed¶34
Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahana, (2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Complainants
State of Telangana
Station House Officer
Superintendent of Police
District Collector
Tahsildar
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
