Dismissed

Konkala Suresh v. The state of Telengana

Telangana HC10 Sept 2020WP/11615/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging the failure of police to investigate a crime or act against accused. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that delays in investigation have valid reasons and the petitioner must avail specific statutory remedies under CrPC sections 156, 190, and 200 before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available in law.

Konkala Suresh Vs The state of Telengana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J u risd iction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11615 OF 2020

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

KONKALA SURESH, S/O K.Ramulu, Age.32 years,Occ Business, Proporitor of SRI I\4AHATHI AGRO TRADERS Fertrlizer, Pestisides and Seeds, Shop No.13, lvluncipal Complex, Collage road, Gadwal,Jogulamgadwal District.

¶9

...pETtTtoNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The state of Telengana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, HOME, Department, Secretarirat, at Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director General of Police, Hyderabad,

¶13

The Supriendent of Police, Jogulamba Gadwal.

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GADWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, JOGULAIVBA GADWAL DISTRICT.

¶15

K.Murali KRISHNA, S/o K.Ramulu age.33 yea rs,occ. Business, Kuntaveedi ,Gadwal^Town, Jogulamba Gadwal district.

¶16

K.Ravi Teja, S/o K.Ramulu age 28 years, Occ Business Kuntaveedi ,Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gadwal d istrict,

¶17

Smt. K.Radha, w/o K.l,4urali Krishna aged 28 years, Occ Bussiness R/o

¶18

Kuntaveedi ,Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gadwal district.

¶19

...RESpoNDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS the action of the Respondent No.4 that not consider the representation dated 1210312020 to investigate in crime No.23412019 and take action against the Respondent No.5 to 7, the action of the Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section^'1 51 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.4 to investigate in crime No.23412019 dated 2111112019 and to file report against the Respondent No.5 to 7 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAJESHWAR RAO

¶24

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 7: ---

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.11615 of 2O2O

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶32

This writ petition is liled alleging that even though crime No.234 of 2Ol9 was registered on 21. l1.2ol9 in Gadwal Police Station, so far there is no progress in investigation into the crime and no action is taken against respondents 5 to 7. it is also the case of petitioner that on 12.O3.2O2O, he submitted a representation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gadwal Police Station complaining that on account of inordinate delay in investigating into the crime, grave prejudice is caused to him. In this writ petition petitioner is praying to declare the action of SubInspector of Police, Gadwal Police Station, in not concluding the investigation and not acting upon the representation as arbitrary, illegal and seeks consequential directions.

¶33

In other words, grievance of the petitioner is on delay in concluding the investigation. The very same issue u,as considered by this Court in W.P.No.3B397 of 2Ol9 & batch in "Govind Raju Sami Vs State of Telangana and Others1". On consideration of the precedent decisions on the subject and the scope of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), more particularly, Sections 156, 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C., this Court held as under^:

¶34

"34. Having regard to law propounded b1, Supreme Court, it is no more open for any one to contend that unless a report is filed aggrieved person is without remedl . It is also no more open to

¶35

'^{zoro131 nLt t:o}

¶36

--l

¶37

contend that once crime is registered accused must be arrested and charge sheet/final report must be liled as a matter of course. Further, delay in corDpleting the investigation can be for various reasons. Police ma,"- be rvaiting for forensic report/ Medical report/the accused is absconding/ having regard to complex nature of crime reported more time is consumed to collect required data/ information to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or witnesses are more. While determining delalr', it is necessary to consider each case on its facts having regard to attending circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses etc lMahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar Appeal (Civil) No. 1038 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."

¶38

The very same issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M,Subramaniam and another Vs S.Janaki and another2". ln the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view laken by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Mohd. Yousuf Vs Afaq Jahar-r and held as under :

¶39

" 17. In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate u'hich 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) CrPC, 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.'

¶40

J Since petitioner has an effective and efficacious remedy, if he has grievance against inordinate delay in concluding the investigation and filing final report, this writ petition is not - 2020 SCC online S.C. 341

¶41

-.1 -

¶42

maintainable and petitioner has to avail the remedy available in lar,",, before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as available in lan'. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶44

t SECTI ON OFFICER To 1 One CC to Sri G Rajeshwar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) J Two CD Copies IVBC+

¶45

HIGH COURT

¶46

DATED: 1010912020

¶47

1 H E S TA
oo lisEPm
3l

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.11615 of 2020

¶50

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION