Thondapu Ramesh Babu v. The State of Telangana and 5 others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-23. Thondapu Ramesh Babu v. The State of Telangana and 5 others. Read the judgment and case details...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J u risd iction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23571 OF 2020 Between: Thondapu Rqm. gsh Babu, S/o. Beemaiah, aged about 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Thallada Village and Mandal, Khammam District. ... pE,rroNER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General of Police, Telangana, Lakadikapool, Nampally, Hyderabad 3, The Commissioner of Police, Khammam Commissionerate. KhammamTown and District. 4. The Assistant Commissroner of Police, Wyra Division, Khammam District. 5. The Station House Officer, Thallada Police Station, Khammam District. 6. Thondapu Venkata Krishna, S/o Bheemaiah, Aged about 59 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o R/o Thallada Village and l\/andal, Khaminam District and others. ...
RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in lhe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No. 5 in no n-reg istratio n of FIR against the respondent No. 6 and others basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles '14, 19 and 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the Sth respondent to register the FIR against the respondent No.
6 and others basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Sth respondent to register the FIR against the respondent No. 6 and others basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No. 6: --- The Court made the following: ORDER ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23571 OF 2O2O ORDER: Heard learned counsel lor the petitioner, iearned Assistant Government Pleader lor Home appearing for respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed alleging that even though cognizable crime was reported on 17 . O5. 2020, so far crime is not registered. 3.
I1' the petitioner had grievancc against non-registration ol crime, he has an effective and eflicacious remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, petitioner has to avail the remedy available in law, before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. The very issue was considered by this Court in W. P. No. 38397 of 2018 and batch in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and Othersl. On consideration of the precedent decisions on the subject and the scope o[ provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more particularly, Sections 1 56, 190 and 200 of Cr. P. C. , this Court held as under: "i)4. H:ii,ing regard to 1ar,r, propor-r|rclcri b-r Supremc CourL, rL Ls no rnore open lbr an_r' one to conten(l tllal Llnless a rcport is filec1 aggrieved person is \\,ithout remecl\,. It is also no rnorc open to contend that once crime is registered accused must be arrested and charge sheet/final report mlrst be lllecl as a matter ol course.
F'urther, cielay in completing the investigation can be for various reasons. Police nray be \vaiting ibr lbrensic report/Medical report/thc accused is absconding/ having regard to complex nature of crime reported more time is consumed to coilect required data/ information to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or u,itnesses 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 {Mahender Lal Das v. State ol Bihar Appeal (Civit) No. 1038 of 2001 dated 12. 10. 20011. The jurisdictional Magistrate shall have all material facts in issue at his 2019 (3) Ar. T 139 command to assess the issue and shall be competent to go into all aspects $,hen matters are brought before him and to take appropriate decisjon.
It is also rvjthin rhe competence of superior oflicers to asscss tl-le condLlct oI Slation Ilouse Officcr and to take remedial action whenever there is deliberate and unexplatned delal'in investigation and filing of final report. '' 5. This aspcct ! \'as considcred b1' the Hon'ble Suprerne Court ir-i M,subramaniam and another v. S. Janaki and another2. In the sard judgment, the Hon'bie 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. In Sakiri Vasu, the Supreme Court held as under: "17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. is uide enough to include all such porvers in a Magistratc which are necessary lor ensuring a proper investigation, ancl it ir. tclucles the po\\'er to order registration of an FIR ancl ol orderir. tg . t proper rrl\cstigation if thc Magistlate is satislied thelt al prol)er in! cstlgattott has no1 beell clone.
or is not being done trr the police Scctiorr l5fi(31 Cr-. 1'C.. thoLlgh brieflr uordccl. in our opinion, is vcrr u'ic1e ancl it utll inclrtdc arll such rnciclentail pou'ers as are ncccssaTf lor cnsuring a proper investigation. " 18. It is well settled that u'lten a pouer is given to an authoritv to do something it inclr. rdcs sr. tch ir. tcidental or implied porvers rvhich lvould cnsure the proper dolt]g of that thing. In othel rvords, rlhen atlv porver is expressly granted bl, lhe statute, there is impljedly included in the grant, even u ithout special tnentiol. l, every power and ever'- control tl. re denial of u,hlch rvould render the grant itsclf ineflective. Thus rvhere an Act confers jllrisdiction it impliedly also grants the poluer of doing all such acts or emplol'such means as are essentially necessary for its execlrtion. " 6.
Following the above decisions, this Writ Petition is dismissed rvith liberty to petitioner to work out his remedies on the issue of non- registration of crime stated to have been reported by the petitioner on 17. O5. 2O2O. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. '2020 sCC online S C. 341 '(rooe) , scc 409 (2006) 1 SCC 627 KRIS A SD/. M. RAMANA ASSISTANT REGI R ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, tOP! 91 L One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar Advocaie in" Staie ot relangana (oUT) 2. rwo ccs to GP for noru. tiii'rrtoJ'tiiir. 3. Two CD CoPies \ MBC -\"rbu ', HIGH COURT DATED: 2311212020 1HE S TA o I0 2 JAN 2021 * ORDER WP. No. 23571 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \)- 30 "O
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.