Katta Vanaja Rani 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 2020-12-23. Katta Vanaja Rani 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) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22284 OF 2020 Between: Katta Vanaja Rani, W/o Anand, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 5-7-9l12,Flal No. 2O4, Sri Durga Residency, Behind l\,4etro, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-7 2. . ,,PETITIONER 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, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Cyberarbad 4. The Station House Officer, Shameerpet Police Station, Hyderabad 5. Yedla Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Raghava Reddy, aged about 68 years, Occ Business, R/o Flat No. 201, Plot No. 27 and 28, Eldritch Towers, Road No. '14, Panchavati Colony, l\/anikonda, Hyderabad 6.
Yedla Uma, W/o Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 63 years, Occ Household, R/o Flat No. 201, Plot No. 27 and 28, Eldritch Towers, Road No. 14, Panchavati Colony, [,4anikonda, Hyderabad 7. I Yedla Sandesh Reddy, S/o Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 40 years, Occ Private Employee, R/o Flat No. 20'1 , Plot No. 27 and 28, Eldritch Towers, Road No. 14. Panchavati Colony, Manikonda, Hyderabad 8. Yedla Sandeep Reddy, S/o Sudhakar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ Private Employee, Fi/o Flat No. 201, Plot No. 27 and 28, Eldritch Towers, Road No. 14, Panchavati Colony, lt/anikonda, Hyderabad ... RES'ONDENTS 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 the nature of Writ of lvlandamus declaring the inaction of the 4th re,spondent in non-reg istration of FIR again respondent No.
5 to B basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (S),21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 4th respondent to register the FIR against the respondent No. 5 to B basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner. 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 4th respondent to register the FIR against the respondent No. 5 to 8 basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. S to 8: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.
22 244 0F 2020 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 2. This writ petition is filed alleging that even though cognizable crime was reported on 03. 1 l. 2O2O, so far crime is not registered. 3. If the petitioner had grievance against non-registration of crime, she has an effective and efficacious 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 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 Iaw 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 liled as a matter of course. Further, delay in completing the investigation can be for various reasons. Police may be waiting for forensic report/Medical report/the accused is absconding/ having regard to complex nature of crime reported more time is consumed to collect required data/ information to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or witnesses are more. While determining I zots 1a; eLt t39 J delay, it is necessary to consider each case on its facts having regard to attending circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and lvitnesses etc lMahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar Appeal (Civil) No. 1038 of 2001 dated 12. 10. 20C11.
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 ;":J::. il ;ri::, "i,i". : i:H:ff:H::: ;ji:::*: 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 pradesh: 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 wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary lbr 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 sat been done, or is not ;::T ::::T1T;;:"':il:,"iil:; Cr. p. C. , though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessarv lbr 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 an_v power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every po\yer and every control the denial of rvhich would render the grant itself ineffectivr j;::,:: i t impliedry ar so sran ts,;" ::::: ff :::t:::::Hi:; such means as are essentially necessar-y for its execution.
,, '2OzO SCC oniine S. C. 341 12008) 2 SCC 409 (2006) I SCC 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 03. 1 1. 2020. Pending miscellaneous petitions sha11 stand closed. SD/-CH. VENKATESW U I ASSISTANT EG RAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To, 1 . One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl 3. Two CD Copies CHR I HIGH COURT DATED:2311212020 ] i "t He s7A i ( a o o 0 4 JAN 2021 :) ORDER * ,, I t"aa. . '";? W. P. No. 22284 o12020 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION 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.