Disposed

Soma Shiva v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Feb 2024WP/76/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing registration of an FIR against respondent No.4 for trespass and property damage, alleging inaction on his complaint despite cognizable offences. The court held that under Section 154(3) CrPC he should approach the Commissioner of Police and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make an appropriate application to respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Police), who was directed to examine it and take action in accordance with law. No costs.

Soma Shiva Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 76 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Soma Shiva, S/o Soma Ashok Aged about 38 yrs, Occ Business, Rl/o H.no. 12-2-8231 Al 1 19, Santosh Nagar Hyderabad.

¶10

.,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, through its Principal Secretary, Home, having office at T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Having office at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Station House officer, P.S. Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 lvlrs Rubina, W/o not known to the petitioner, Aged about 40 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o Santosh Nagar Colony, 12-2-822, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 pass an order, direction or a writ particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction on part of the respondent No.3 in registering a FIR against the respondent No.4 on the basis of complaint given by the petitioner dated 11-12-2023, disclosing cognizable offence Uls. 447 and 448 IPC Rlw.427 IPC is highly illegal, arbitrary and amounts to dereliction of duties and in violation of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumar Vs. State of U.P., consequently, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 to register F.l.R., against the respondent No.4 on the basis of complaint given by the^petitioner dated 11-12-2023 disclosing cognizable offence Uls.447 and 448 IPC R/w.427 IPC-

¶18

,/ tA No: 1 oF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 15'1 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 F.l.R., against the respondent No.4 on the basis of complaint given by the petitioner dated 1-12-2023 disclosing cognizable offence Uls. 447 and 448 IPC R/w. 427 lPC.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - - - -

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{C. V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.76 of²⁰²⁴

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Writ Petition, under Article^{226 of the Constitution of}

¶28

India, is filed by the^{petitioner,seeking the following relief:}

¶29

"...to^pass an order, direction^{or a writ particularlYin the natureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring^{that the inaction on part of the} respondent No.3 in registering^{a FIRagainstthe respondentNo'4 on} the basis of complaint^{given by the petitioner dated 11-12-2023,} disclosing cognizable offence^{u/s.447 and 448 IPC R/w.427IPC is} highly illegai, arbitrary^{and amounts to dereliction of duties and in} vilotation of the direction of the^{Hon'bteSupreme Courtin the case of} Lalitha Kumar Vs. State of^{l.l.P., consequently,thisHon'ble court may} be pteased to direct the^{respondentNo3'To registerF.I'R., against} the respondent No.4 on the^{basis of complaint given by the petitioner} dated 11-12-2023 disclosing^{cognizableoffence U/s' 447 and 448} IPC Nw.4 27 IPC and^{pass anY otherorderor orders as deemed fit} and^proper in the circumstances^{of the case in the interest of} justice,..."

¶30

The learned counsel^{for the petitionerhas submittedthat the} petitioner has lodged a complaint dated 11.12.2023^{on the file oF} respondent No.3 for taking necessary^{action against the} respondent No.4 and even though the^{said complaintreveals} commission of cognizable offence,^{the respondentNo.3 is not} registering the case by following the^{procedurecontemplated} under Section 154 Cr.P.C and^also the^{guidelines issuedby the}

¶31

¶32

¶33

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of U.P and otherst.

¶34

This Court has carefully examined the complaint dated 17.12.2023 submitted by the petitioner, wherein it is stated that respondent No.4 has criminally trespassed into the property of the petitioner and interfered with the construction activity and also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences and damaged the property and broke the compound wall, tiles and granites which were kept in the ground floor and also some other material on site.

¶35

As per Section 154 (3) Cr.p.C, any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in Sub_Section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C, may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence. In the instant case, since it is the case of

¶36

' lzot:; r+ scn zrs

¶37

¶38

the petitioner that even though the complaint lodged by him would reveal commission of cognizable oFfence. the respondent No.3 is not registering the complaint, as per Section 154(3) Cr.p.C, the petitioner can be relegated to make an appropriate application on the file of respondent No.2.

¶39

In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make an appropriate application on the file of respondent No.2. On filing such application, the respondent No.2 is directed to examine the same and take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

¶40