Hanan Anwar v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-11-10. Hanan Anwar v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 19597 OF 2020 Between: Hanan Anwar, D/o Late Syed Shah Anwar Hussain, aged about 26 years, Occupation. Household R/o H. No. 20-1-45412, F alima Colony, Koka Ki tatti, Hussaini AIam' Hyderabad -500064 ... pETrroNER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, B,R. K. R. Bhavan, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Charminar Division, Charminar, Hyderabad 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone at Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 5. The Station House Officer, Hussaini AIam Police Station, Hyderabad. 6. Ayub Khan, S/o [Vlohammed Abbas Khan Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No.
9-4-621 1 20, Nizam Colony, Toll Chowki, Hyderabad. 7. Mohd Akbar Khan, S/o Mohammed Abbas Khan Aged major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 9-4-621 1 20, Nizam Colony, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad. 8. Sameera Kulsum, W/o lVohd. Afaq Hussain, Aged major, Occ. Household, R/o H. No. 9-4-621 1 20, Nizam Colony, Toll Chowki, Hyderabad. 9. Mohd Afaq Hussain, s/o not known to the petitioner, Aged major, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 9-4-621120, Nizam Colony, Toll Chowki, Hyderabad. 10. Sara Taranum, W/o Asif Khan, Aged major, Occ. Household, R/o H. No. 9-4-621 1 20, Nizam Colony, Toll Chowki, Hyderabad. 11. Asif Khan, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged major, Occ. Business, Ri/o H. No. 9-4-621120, Nizam Colony, Toll Chowki, Hyderabad. 12. Shaika Shabnam Shazia, W/o Waseem, aged major, Occ. Household, @ R/o H. No. 9-4-621 1 20, Nizam Colony, Tol i Chowki, Hyderabad. 13. Waseem, s/o not known to the petitioner, aged major, Occ. Business, Fl/o H. No. 9-4-621 1 20, Nizam Colony, Toll Chowki, Hyderabad. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Adicle 226 of 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, or Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IUANDAMUS declaring the action of the 5th respondent in not registering crime against the unofficial respondents 6 to 13 by considering the complaint dated 19. 10. 2020 as arbitrary, illegal, u nco nstitutional and contrary to law and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Honble Court in the interest of . lustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 5th respondent to register crime agairlst the unofficial respondents 6 to'13 by considering the representation of the petitionerdated 19. 10. 2020. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. C. K.
SINGH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 'l to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 13: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 19597 OF 2O2O ORDER: Heard iearned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 5. 2 . This writ petition is filed alleging that even though a cognizable crime was reported on L9. 1O. 2O20, so far no crime is registered. 3. lf the petitioner had grievance against non - regi stration of crime, she has an eflective and efficacious remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, petitioner has to avail the remedy available in law before invoking the jurisdiction of this l Court. 4. The very issue was considered by this Court in W. P. No. 38397 of 2O\9 and batch in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and Othersl.
On consideration of the precedent decisions on the subject and the scope of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more particularly, Sections 156, 190 and 200 of Cr. P. C. , this Court held as under: "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. lt 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, detay in completing the investigation can be for various reasons.
Police may be waiting for forensic report/Medical report/the accused is ah€conding/ having regard to complex nature of crime reported more time is consumed to collect 20 19 (3) ALT 139 required data/ information to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or witnesses are more, While determining 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 lMahender 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 supenor 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. ' 5. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam and another v. S. Janaki and another2. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh3 and Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahana. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the opinion expressed in Sakiri Vasu. ln Sakiri Vasu, the Supreme Court held as under: "17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which 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. " 18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing, In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction ' 2O2O SCC online S. C. 341 3 (2008) 2 SCC 4O9 4 (2006) 1 SCC 627 it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution. " 6.
Following the above decisions, this writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedies on the issue of non-registration of crime stated to have been reported by the petitioner on 19. L0. 2O2O. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. SD/. M. MANJIJLA ASSISTANT REqlsTRAR t' //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri T. C. K. Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 2. iil CCt to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies SM HIGH COURT DATED:1 0/1 1/2020 ttE . > TA 1 16: < /q l o ORDER (. ) I 2 4 No', 2U0 o WP. No. 19597 ol 2020 ,,/y * ,) C!. { t DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS { \
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.