The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to direct the police to expedite investigation in an FIR already registered. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy and directed the petitioner to use statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C.
Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to avail statutory remedies under Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE S1 AT HYDERfJiOOFTELANGANA
(Special Originat Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND rWENrT''--''
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
Between:
WRIT PETITION NO: 17991 oF 2020
Goda Krishna, S/o Lat^e - Goda Lakshmaiah ya.dav, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.6-3-7e5te, Shi;iliiliL*g"r, A;"brpui, iyot"rlujioororo
...PETITIoNER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of [\ilandamus direction the Respondent No. 2 to immediately carry out investigation in FIR No. 51712020, daled 1010312020 and repod to XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally.
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. A. SAMIR KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8:------
The Court made the following: ORDER
)
THE HON'BLESRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO o WRIT PETITIONNo.1 799L OF2
ORDER:
Heard learnedcounsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant GovernmentPleaderfor Homeappearing for respondents 1 and 2.
"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
-1
report/ the accused is ab sconding/having regard to complex natu.re of crime reported t'^' is co'sumed to corect required data/ information ,r-ot' or docu m en ts,na 7o.,u, t, J"11""":1j::f ffi i'ff ",l,l.,1? delay, it is necessary to consider each case on its facts having regard to attending circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses etc [Mahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar Appeat (Civil) No. 1038 of 2OOl dated 12.10.20011. The jurisdictional Magistrate shall have all material facts in issue ar 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. [t 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.,'
"17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate rvhich 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 will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. "
'2o2o scconline s.c. 341
3 l2OO8) 2 SCC 409
4 (2006) I SCC 627
4
the grant itself ineffective.Thus where an Act confersjurisdiction it impliedly also grants thepower of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentiallynecessaryfor its execution"
liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure against not concluding the investigation and
filing the final report. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand
closed.
To,
SD/. I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT RE9,I8TRAR v/-
,TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
SM 4a--
HIGH COURT
DATED:10/11i2020
rh1
1 HE ST4 14:
q
,\l
(::
ooJ 24 No'J2m ii)
Op.spA{Cll o
ORDER
WP.No.17991 ol 2020
DISMISSING THE WP
WITHOUT COSTS
q7 ,)l /Ju
<)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the police to expedite investigation in a FIR when the crime is already registered.
Whether an aggrieved person has a remedy against delay in conducting investigation by applying under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the Court can direct the police to file a final report in the absence of cogent reasons for delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Raju Sami v. State of TelanganaExplained¶29
(2001) 6 SCC 265 · Who else cites this
M.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and anotherExplained¶34
M.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and another
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar PradeshExplained¶34
(2000) 1 SCC 627 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq JahanaExplained¶34
Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahana
M.L. Das v. State of BiharExplained¶34
(2001) 1 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Goda Krishna
The State of Telangana
P. Vinod Kumar
Shivaraj
B. Ravulapalli Venkata Rao
P. NAVEEN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
