Dismissed

M.a.Waheed v. The State of Tclangana

Telangana HC14 Sept 2020WP/15410/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the failure of police to investigate and arrest accused persons in Cr.No.51 of 2020. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the writ was not maintainable as appropriate remedies exist under the Criminal Procedure Code.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to work out remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code.

M.a.Waheed Vs The State of Tclangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15410 OF 2o2o

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

M.A.Waheed, S/o.Late M.A.Jabbar, aged 35 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.1-4-79, It4asoodnagar, Adilabad, Dist: Adilabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep.bv its Prl.Secrctary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

¶14

The Station House Officer, P.S. l-Town, Adilabad, Adilabad district.

¶15

Syed lrfan, S/o.Syed Moin, Aged about 28 years, Student, Rl/o.Ho. No.1-2-37'l , Shanthinagar, Adilabad.

¶16

llyas Khan, S/o.Arif Khan, aged not known, Occ.not known, Rl/o.Subashnaga r, Khuntagalli, Dharmabad, Nanded District, Maharashtra.

¶17

,..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 o'f 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 orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in not investigating and arresting the Respondents 5 and 6 in connection with Cr.No.51 of 2020 for offences U/Sec.307, 420,506, 120b, r/w.109 of IPC on the file of P.S.Adilabad lTown, Adilabad district as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 arrest the Respondents 5 and 6 in the interest of^justice.

¶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 Respondents 2 to 4 to arrest the Respondents 5 and 6 in connection with Cr.No.51 of 2020 for offences U/Scc.307, 420,506, 120b rlw.109 of IPC on the file of P.S. Adilabad 1-Town in the interest of Justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl LAKKADI DAYAKER REDDY

¶22

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

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6:-----

¶24

'l'hc Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.1541O OF 2O2O

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶30

This writ petition is Iiled to declare the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not investigating and arresting respondents 5 and 6 in Crime No.51 of 2O2O on the file of Adilabad I Town Police Station, Adilabad District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

The issue of delay in investigation, arrest and not registering crime were considered by this Court in Govind Raju Sami v, State of Telangana and othersl. The very issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam and another v. S. Janaki and anotherz and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional Magistrate is vested wide powers to deal with the issues arising out of delay in investigation, not filing final report and not arresting the accused, as the case may be, and also held that aggrieved person has to avail the remedies provided by the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶32

Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand clo sed.

¶33

2019 (3) ALT 139

¶34

2020 SCC Online SC 341

¶35

SD/-I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANTIREGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

To,

¶38

One CC to Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶39

2 Two CCs to GP for H ome, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶40

Two CD Copies .

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410912020

ORDER

WP.No.15410 of 2020

*
s
c: rl
s"
Iulc
+
C
Hgllt

¶47

DISMISSING THE WP WTHOUT COSTS

M.a.Waheed v. The State of Tclangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Waheed v. The State of Tclangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Ravinder Reddy Vs Sri Somesh Kumar, Ias.and 2 Others

D.Sai Reddy Vs Smt.B.Kalavathi Bai

Hamza Hazrami Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Smt.N.Seetamani Vs The State of Telangana

S.Santoshi Vs The State of Telangana

Pambali Venkatesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh