Dismissed

Mahmood Mohiuddin v. The State of Telangana and 7 others

Telangana HC14 Sept 2020WP/13481/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC challenging police inaction in registering a crime. The Court held the petition not maintainable as the petitioner had statutory remedies available under the CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to work out remedies for non-registration of crime under CrPC.

Mahmood Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IVONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13481 oF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

lghmqod^{-A/ohiuddin,S/o. Late l\rlohsin Mohammed, Aged 5.1 years,Occ: Business,} R/o. H. No.3-2-6 8413160, Banjara Green Colony, Road No.12, Banjarahiils, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PET|T|ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Station House Officer, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad. 5. Syed Munawar Ali, S/o. Syed fVahboob Ali, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business,

¶14

Syed Mustafa Ali, S/o. Syed lvlunawar Ali, Aged 28 years, Occ: Business, 7. Syed lt4uzzafer Ali, S/o. Syed l\rlunawar Ali, Aged 26 years, Occ: Business, B. Syed lt4ahmood Ali, S/o. Syed Munawar Ali, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business, Respondents 5 to B Rl/o.H.No.8-1-3641A11, Fatimanagar, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 or order or direclion more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondent No.4ⁱⁿ registering the crime and taking action against Respondent Nos.5 to 8ⁱⁿ accordance with law pursuant to the complaint dated 09.07 .2020 and^{10.08.2020given by the} Petitioner is highly deplorable, arbitrary,^{u ncon} stitutiona^{l, violative of Art. 14 and 21} ' contrary to the^provisions of Code of^{Criminal Procedure, 1973 besides the law laid} down by the Apex court Lalitha^{KumariVs. Government of uttar Pradeshand} consequently direct the Respondent^{No.4 to register the crime and proceed withthe} same in accordance with^{law in the interest of} .iustice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} theRespondentNo.4toregistertheCrimeagainsttheRespondentNos.5toSin pursuance of the complaint dated^{og.o7.2O2O and 10.08.2020and proceed withthe} same in accordance^{with law in the interest of justice'}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI MOHAMMEDABDUL QUADEER}

¶20

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos.5to 8:} -

¶22

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶23

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO}

¶24

WRIT^{PETITIONNo. 13481 0F 2020}

¶25

RDER:

¶26

Heard learned^{counselfor the petitioner and learnedAssistant} Government^{Pleaderfor Homeappearingfor respondents1 to 4'}

¶27

This writ^{petitionis filed praying to declarethe inaction of the} Station House^{Officer,Saifabad PoliceStation'Hyderabad'} respondent^{No.4, in not registeringthe crimeand taking action} against respondents^{5 to B in spite of lodgingcomplaintdated} Og.O7 .2O2O^{followed by furthercomplaint dated 10 08 2O2Oin} Saifabad Police^{Station,as illegal and arbitrary'}

¶28

In other words,^{grievanceof the petitioner is on delay in} registering the crime.^{Petitionerhas an effective and efficacious} remedy against non-^{registering the crime. Therefore,petitioner has} to avail the remedy available^{in law, before invokingthe jurisdiction} of this Court. Therefore, this^{writ petition is not maintainable.}

¶29

The very issue was considered by this Court in^W.P.No.38397 of 2019 and batch in Govind Raju Sami v, State ofTelangana and Othersl. 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:

¶30

"34. Having regard to law propounded b_r'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 feglstered accused must be arrested and charge sheet/final report must be fiied as a matter of course.

¶31

'zors^{(g) A.r-rrgg}

¶32

Further, delay in completir tn" investiSation can be for various reasons. police may o"'u ullitine for forensic report/Medical report/the accused is absco rec:rd to complex nature or ime reported n,".. ,,11",]1"^:nc ts consumed to collect required data/ information to assesr the nature of crime nrtmber of documents and/or witnesses is necessary to consider .u,t^{"" -ot"whiledeterminingdela-v,it} attending circumstances ,r:n^{"u"t on its facts having regardto} accused and witnesses "," iilI:il:,::: lllT"l,;,1"Jl1.,j Appeal (Civit) No. 1038 iurisdictionar command to assess Masistrate the issue"^.,,";jt:l ,,I:::, r:"t:;:::j: ",T: aspects when matters are l::"*" ff:Jr.::",:.-",:",:j: 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.,,

¶33

This aspect was considered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in M.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and another2. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme court affirmecl the vier.r, taken by the Supreme Court rn Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar pradesh and Mohd. Yousufv. Afaq Jahan and held as under:

¶34

"17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such pouers in a Magistrate ',r,hich are necessary for ensurir.rg 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."

¶35

Following the above decisions, this writ^{petitionis dismissed} granting Iiberty to the petitioner to^work out^{his remedies on the} issue of non-registration of^{crime stated to have been reportedby}

¶36

t 2020 scc online S.C. 34I

¶37

¶38

the petitioner on 09.O7 .2020 following by further complaint on 10.08.2020. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT RE9I.SJRAR //TRUE COPY/I \V.'

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42