Dismissed

S.Santoshi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Sept 2020WP/15481/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging inaction and delay in investigation. The bench held that the petitioner has an effective remedy through Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before invoking writ jurisdiction for delay in investigation. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writing petition dismissed; liberty granted to work out remedies on delay in investigation.

S.Santoshi Vs The State of Telangana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15481 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.Santoshi, D/o S.Ashok Kumar, Aged 23 years, Occ. Student, Rl/o Plot No.9, Lane No.1, Sirimallenagar Colony, Attapur, Hyderabad - 500 048.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionarate, Gachibouli, Cyberabad - 500 032.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone, Cyberabad Commissionarate, Shamshabad - 50'l 218.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Division, Cyberabad Commissionarate, Rajendranagar, TS - 500 030.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to pass order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other proper Writ thereby declare the inaction of Respondents Nos.2 to 5 are u ncon stitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory and violating the fundamental rights^guaranteed under articles 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of lndia by directing the Respondent No.5 to complete the investigation of Crime No.1694 oI 2019 of PS Rajendranagar registered under section 448,354 and 354(a) of IPC within specified time and the file charge sheet / final Report into the Court and also direct the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 to supervise to get completed the investigation of Crime No.1694 of 2019 by Respondent No.5 within the period as directed by this Honble Court.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

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.5 to receive the oral and documentary evidence^providing by the petitioner forthwith without further delay.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIDHAR LENDALAY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

-2-

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.15481 of 2O2O

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

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

¶27

This writ petition is filed alleging that even though Crime No.1694 of 2019 was registered by Rajendranagar Police under Sections 448, 354 and 354(a) of IPC, so far the investigation is not completed, final report is not filed and on account of delay by the Police in investigating into the crime, grave prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

¶28

In other words, grievance of the petitioner is on delay in concluding the investigation. The very issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.38397 of 2Ol9 & batch in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and Othersl. On consideration ol the precedent decisions on the subject and the scope of provisrons 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 :

¶29

'34. Having regard to law 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 nature of crime reported more time is consumed to collecr required data/ information to assess the nature of crime, numbcr of documents and/or witnesses are more. While detelrnining delay, it is necessary to consider each case on its facts having regard to attending cirL-urn$tances including nature of offenct,,

¶30

'zoro^{1a1e,lr r3s}

¶31

-J-

¶32

number of accused and n'itnesses etc [Mahender 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.'

¶33

This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Subramaniam and another Vs S.Janaki and another2. In the said^judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken b), the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh - (2OO8) 2 SCC 4O9 and Mohd. Yousuf Vs Afaq Jahan^* 2006(1) SCC 627 and heid as under:

¶34

"l7. In our opinion Section 156{3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to ir:clude all such pou,ers in a Magistrate rvhich are necessar v- for cnsuring a proper investigation, and it includes the poiver to order registration of an FIR and ol ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satished 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 r,vill include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a^proper investigation.'

¶35

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 maintainable and petitioner has to avail the remedy available in law, before invoking the^jurisdiction of this Court.

¶36

The writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies on the issue of delay in finahzing investigation in Crime No. 1694 of 2079 pending in

¶37

' 2O2O SCC online S.C. 341

¶38

-4-

¶39

Rajendranagar police Station. Pending miscellaneous petitions

shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY'