R.K. Ahuja v. The State of Telangana and another
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-10-21. R.K. Ahuja v. The State of Telangana and another. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO:18492 OF 2020 Betwee n: R. K. Ahuja, S/o. Late Dr. Tarachand Ahuja, Aged: 75 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 'B-12', Anand Niketan', New Delhi -110021 . Represented by his G. P. A. Holder D. K, Ahuja, S/o. Late K. C. Ahuja Aged: 66, Occ: Business, R/o. 6-3-1219/3, Uma Nagar, Begumpet - 500016. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad, T. S. 2. The Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, T. S. ,..
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot 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, particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the inaction on the part of the Respondents 1 and 2 in investigating the crime Registered in F. l. R. 492 of 2ot9 dated 28. 09. 2019 panjagutta on the file of Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana for the offences under sectrons 406, 417, 420,447 R/w 1208 IPC and Section 156(3) cr. p. c and filing the final report (charge sheet) under Section 173 of cr. p. c. , as arbitrary, illegal, unfair, unjust and violation of Article 14 of constitution of lndia, and consequen y to direct the 2nd Respondent to complete the investigation and file the final report immediately in the interest of Justice, pending disposar of petition, the writ in the interest of Justice.
lA NO: 1 oF 2020 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 2"d Respondent to conduct investigation in the crime No. 492 of 2019 dated 28-09-2019 for the offences under sections 406, 41r, 420, 447 R/w 1208 rpc and Section 156(3) cr. P. c and fire the finar report (charge sheet) . 1 under section 73(3) of Cr. P. C pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI OMAR A pASHA Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1849 2 0F 2020 J ORDER: IJeard learned r:ounsel for the pr:titioner ar_rd lr:zrrncd Assistant Governmcnt pleader lor Homc appearing lor thc respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed alleging that even rhough a cognizable Crime No. 492 ot 2019 was registered on 2B. O9.
2OIg 1n Panjagutta Police station on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, so far therc is no progress in the investigation 3. If the petitioner had grievance against delay in investigation into Crime No. 492 of 2019, he has an eflccrivc and e flicacious remedy under the Criminal Proccdurc Codc. Therelorc, petitioncr has to avail the remedy, available in lan,, belbre invoking rl. le j u risd iction ol this Courr. 4. Thc vcr_v issuc \\'as conside rcd br,' 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 of provisions of the Code cll Criminal Procedure, more particularly, Sections 156, 190 and 2OO of Cr. P. C. , this Court held as under: "34. I{aving regard to law propounded by Supreme Courl, it is no r)orc open for any one to contcnd tha1. unless a report is filcd aggrieved person is without remedy.
It is also no morc open to contend that once crime is registered accused must be arrested and charge sheet/linal rcport must be filed as a matter of course. Further, dela)'in completing Lhe investigation can bc lor various reasons. Police mal be u'aiting for forr:r. tsic report/ Medicirl rcport/the accuscd is atrscon ding/ having rcgard to complex 2019 (3) AL] r39 ) nature of crime reported more time is consumed to collect required data/ information to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or rvitnt:sses are more. While determining dclal,, it is ncccssary to considcr each case on its facts ha! ing regar'<1 to attcnding circLlrrlstanccs inclu<1ing rlatLlro ol off(rncc, number o[ accuserl and s'ilncsscs ctc JM. ]hcnder Lal Das \'. Slatc of Bihar Appcal (Civil) No. 1038 of 200i clated 12. lO. 2OOll The jurisdictional Magistratc shi)ll ha\'c al1 material facts in issue al his comrnancl to.
rssess thc issLre and shall bc compctent to go uito all zlspccls \\'hcn maltcrs are broughl before him and to take appropriate decision. It is also \\'ithin the competence o[ supcrior officers to ass(:ss the conduct oI Station IIousc Officcr and to take remedial action $,henever there is deliberatc and unexplained clclay in investigatjon and filing of final rcport. " 5. This aspect \\'as considcred by the Hon'ble Suprcmc Court in M. Subramaniam and another v. S,Janaki and another2. ln 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. Tho Hon'ble Suprcme Court noted the opinion expressed in Sakiri Vasu. In Sakiri Vasu, the Supreme Court held as under: " 17. In oLrr opir. rion St:ction 156(3) Cr. l,. C. is wide enough to inclurlc all srtr-. h po[,crs in a Magjstr. rl{:, rvhic}r are necessary for ensuring ii proper in! estigation.
and it includes the po\\:er to order registration of an IilR ;rnd of or<lt:ring a proper invr:strgariorr il-thc Magjstrate is satislied that a propcr invr:stig;ttion has not bcen rlon<-', or is not bcing donr: b1. thc poJicc.. Section 156(31 Cr. P. C. , though bricflv lr. orded, in our opinion, is,",cr1,rvidc anri it rvill includc all such incidental po\\. crs as are ncccssan. [or en su ring a propcr investigaLion. ,, 18. It is lvell settled that rvhen 3 p611,g1 is given to an authority to do something it includcs such incidental or implied powers which lvould cnsure the proper doing of that thing. In other rvords, 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 r zou O SCC online S. C. 34 t l2oo8) 2 SCC 409 (2006) I SCC 627 l the grant itself ineflective. '1'hus rlherc an Act conlers jLLrisdicllo it impliedll,alsr. : grants thc po\,\,e!
ol doing i. r11 sll(ih acls or cmplo\ such mcans as arc essontiall\' rrccessarv for its oxc( Lt1ion. " 6. Following the above dccisions, this writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the rcrnedy as provided bv the Code of Criminal Proccdure zrgainst rtot concluding thc investigation and filing the final report. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. SDI K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGIS ,TRUE COPY' SECTIO OFFICER To 1 One CC to Sri Omar A Pasha' Advocate tOPUlSl a Two ccs to GP for Ho,"'-iif ilc;;;i6iin" sidt" of relangana [oUrl 3 Two CD CoPies. IV1P 1\ d HIGH COURT DATED:21 11012020 I z:1|re 5 vr' fro' -- -r /t'--,,q o 29 ocT2020 z rl a I ,/ . >, \. {. ' ORDER WP. No. 18492 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f lGt a11 fu0 la /fr
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.