Dismissed

Mohammed Abdul Mateen v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC17 Sept 2020WP/15743/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking direction to register an FIR, the High Court held that specific remedies under the CrPC are available for non-registration of crime. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that intra-crPC challenges should be preferred, and order was remanded for work-out appropriate remedies.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohammed Abdul Mateen Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 15743 OF 2020

¶6

Betwee n :

¶7

N,4ohammed Abdul lt4ateen, Sio Late l,4ohammed Abdul Raheem Age 48 Years, Occ Business # 3-1-40, Tatiguda, Adilabad District Aadhaar No. 8604 8427 0067, Mobile No. 7671087852 Email. [email protected]

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad district, Telangana State

¶13

The Sub-Divisional Police Offjcer, Adilabad, Telangana State.

¶14

The Station House Officer, ll Town Police Station, Adilabad Town, Telangana 504001

¶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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not registering FIR as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court of lndia and the Advisory issued by the Government of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to register an FIR on the report of the petitioner d1.3010712020.

¶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 respondents to register an FIR on the report of the petitioner d|.3010712020.^pending disposal of the marn writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI B.G.RAJESWAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.15743 OF 2O2O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

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

¶26

This writ petition is filed alleging that even though cognizable crime u,as reported before the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Adilabad Town, on 30.O7.2O2O, so lar no crime is registered, u hereas the oll'endcrs continued to affect the rights of thc pctitioner.

¶27

ll thc pctitioncr had grievzrnce against non-rcgtstration ol' crime , he has an eiTcctive and eflicercious remedv under thc Crirninal Procedurc Codc. Therelbre, petitioner has to avail thc remecll irvarilabk: in lrrr,r,. bclore invoking thc^{jr-rrisdiction} of this Court.

¶28

'lhe very issuc u,as considered by this Courl ir-r W.P.No.38397 of 2019 and batch ir-r Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and Otherst. On consideration of the precedent decisions on the subject and the scope of provisions ol the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 anl' one to contend that unless a report is filed aggrieved person is rvithout remedy. lt is also no more open to contend that clnce crime is registered accused mllst be arresled and charge sheet/1lnal report mLrst be filed as a matter of^(:oLrrse. Fllrther, delary in completing the investigation can be for various reasons. Police ma-r' be u,aiting for forensic report/Medical report/thc accuse d is abst:onclingT' ha,,,ing regard to complcx nature ol c-rime rcportccl rnorc tirne is consumed to collect rcquired data/ infolrr;rtion to asscss thc naturr: of crim.', number ol clocuments irrtc.l,/orrritnesses are rnorc. While detcrmining delal , it is necessan lo consiclcr each case on its lacts having regarcl to .rttencling

¶30

2rll, rjl /\Ll lJ!)

¶31

circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses etc IMahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar Appeal (Civil) No. 1038 of 2O0l 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 hirn and to take appropriate decision. It is also within the competence of superior olficers to assess the conduct of Station House OIficer and to take remedial action u,hencver therc is deliberate and unexplained delat in investigatjon and fiiing of linal fcl)orl.^"

¶32

TI.tis zrspcr:t sers considcrecl bl the I{on'blc Strprr:mr: Court in M,Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and another.r. In thc s:rirl .jr-Lclgmcnr,^{the Hor-r'ble SrrpremeCourtaffirmeclthc vieu' taken bv thc} Srrplcrnr'^(lorrrt in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradeshr nnrl Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahanl alrcl hcld .rs Lur(lcr

¶33

"17. In our opjnion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is \'idc enough to include all such porvcrs in a Magistrate rvhich are necessar]' Ior ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the po$,'er to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation iI the Magrstrate 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 u'orded, in our opinion, is very wide and it $'ill include all such incidental po\'ers as are necessary for ensuring a proper invcstigation. "

¶34

Follon'ing the above decisions, this writ petition is dismissecl granting libertv to the petitioner to u'ork out his remedies on the issttc ol non-rcgistration of crirne statcd to have been reportcd Irr thc petitioncr on 30.O7.2O2O. Pcr-rdrng miscollancous petirions sha ll stand closcd.

¶35

To2o SCC^{onlineS,C,341} '(2oog)^{2 scc 4og} '^{(zooo)1 scc 627} SD/.M'MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY'

¶36

SECTION^OFFICER

¶37

To 2.1. rwo one CC ccs to to^{Sri GP B for Home. G Rajeswar, Advocate iifi"#ititIn" IOPUQ] 5i't"of . relansana} -^[oUT] 3. Two CD^CoPies Kj L{

¶38

HIGH COURT

¶39

DATED:1710912020

¶40

ORDER