Dismissed

Vasi Deva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Sept 2020WP/15060/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the failure to register an FIR regarding alleged trespass on his land. The High Court held that writ petitions challenging non-registration of crime are not maintainable. The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., relying on precedent regarding the appropriate forum for such disputes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was granted liberty to work out remedies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Vasi Deva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15060 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vasi Deva Kumar, S/o V.Arogyanatham, Aged about 45 Yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Quthbhullapur Town and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat at B R K Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Neredmet X Road, Hyderabad

¶13

The Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station Cyberabad, Hyderabad

¶14

Sri Bala lVaddilety, S/o not known to petitioner Aged-lt4ajor, Senior l/anager Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Limited, Plot S No.2, 2nd Cross, 3rd Road, lndustrial Park, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-520007

¶15

Smt,Prabhakar Goud, Sio not known to petitioner Aged aboul 45 Yrs, Occemployee of Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Limited, Plot S No.2, 2nd Cross,3rd Road, lndustrial Park, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-520007

¶16

Smt. S. Gouri Vatsala, W/o not known to petitioner Aged about- 45 Yrs, OccTahsildar Qutubullapur tr/andal lvledchal N/alkajgiri District The than Tahsildar, Qutubullapur tr,/andal l/edchal IVlalkajgiri District (presently working as Tahsildar, Keesara [r/andal, Ivledchal tr/alkaiqiri District)

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 in not registering FIR against respondents 4 to 6 on the complaint of the petitioner d1.20.08.2020 who are trespassed into the petitioners land in Sy.No.307/4 to an extent of Ac.55.12^gts situated at Gajularamaram Village, Jagatgirigutta lvlandal, lr/edchal Malkajgiri District by constructing fencing, digging the land for basement purpose by removing boards and boundary is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and against the^judgment of apex in the case of the Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Brhar and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register FIR against the respondents 4 to 6 pursuant to the report of the petitioner dt.20.08.2020.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

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.3 to register FIR against the No.4 to 6^pursuant to the report of the petitioner dt.20.08.2020 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SREENATH KONDAPALLY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: NONE APPEARED

¶23

The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.15060 OF 2O2O

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader lor Home appearing for respondents I to 3.

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that on 20.08.2O2O he Iodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station, Cyberabad, the 3rd respondent,:illeging trespassing of certain persons into his land in Survey No.3O7/A to an extent of Acs.55.12 guntas in Gajularamaram Village, Jagathgirigutta Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, but so [ar crime is not registered and the same is illegal and in viol:rtron of the^judgment in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Biharr and seeks a direction to the 3.d respondent to register a crime reported by the petitioner on 20.O8.2020 against respondents 4 to 6.

¶30

This very issue was considered by this Court in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and others2 and after going through the precedent decisions on the subject and also the decision ol Lalitha Kumari (1 supra), this Court held that writ petjtion is not maintainable against the allegation of non-registration of crime reported by a person and the person has to avail apprc-:priatc remedl- as available in law,.

¶31

The Andhra Pradesh High Court also considered the issure in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch. On reviewing precedent decisions

¶32

'^{(zr.t t.t) I scct} 'zo^to 1:1^{nLt t3o}

¶33

and foilo\rring the decision rendered by this Court in Govind Raju Sami (2 supra) held that the writ petition challenging nonregistration ol crime is not maintainable and aggrieved person has to ll'ork out his remedies as available in law.

¶34

This aspect u,as considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Subramaniam and another Vs S.Janaki and another3. In the said^judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken b1, the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Mohd. YousufVs Afaq Jahan and held as under:

¶35

"17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such porvers in a Magistrate^r,r,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) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it \'ill include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. "

¶36

Following the above de cisions, this writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies on the issue of non-regi stration of crime stated to have been reported by the petitioner oo 20.O8.2020. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶37

t zo2o scc online S.c.341

¶38

SD/.I.NAGAL SHMI ASSISTANT E TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER

¶39

To, 1. One CC to Sri Sreenath Kondapally' Advocate IO-PUCI - - 2. iw; cC"io ir," GP^{for Home, High-Court for the State of Teianganaat} Hyderabad.^(OUT) 3. Two CD Copies CHR \ ),-

¶40

HIGH COURT DATED:0810912020

¶41

ORDER

¶42

W.P.No.15060 of 2020

¶43

1HE SI4 14: {I
I 3 25 sEP2m
o
i,
t t
D rO
pA T

¶44

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS tr

Vasi Deva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasi Deva Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Anjaiah Vs the State of Tg

P.Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Palle Sankaraiah Vs The Commissioner of Police and 3 Others

Mudu Veeranna Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

A.Radhakrishna Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

V.Bhoomesh Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others