Mr. Mohammed Bin Ishaq v. The State Of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21608 OF 2020 Between:

Mr. Mohammed Bin lshaq, s/o lshaq Bin Bader, age 37 years, Occ- Social media influencer/ TBV productions, address- 12-2-8231A1147 , SBI colony, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-500028 ...PETITIONER AND 'l . The State of Telangana, Represented Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber crime Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner of police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad ...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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of lt/andamus to declare the inaction of the respondents to file the FIR and proceed the investigation. 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 take action on the complaint submitted to the police pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. BARKHA BHALLA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

-2HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.216O8 of2O2O ORDER:

There was no representation for the petitioner on 03.72.2O2O and on 17 ,12.2O2O. To give one opportunity the matter was directed to be listed today 'for dismissal'.

2.

Today also there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3.

In this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is against non-registration of crime even though cognizable offence was reported by the petitioner on 18.10.2020 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad. 4.

If the petitioner had grievance against non-registration of crime, he has an effective and efficacious remedy under the Code of Criminai Procedure. Therefore, petitioner has to avail the remedy available in law, before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. 5.

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 ol Criminal Procedure, more particularly, Sections 156, 190 and 2O0 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. It 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, delay in completing the investigation can be for various I zors 1s1elr rse

-3 - 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 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 of Bihar Appeal (Civil) No. 1038 of 2001 dated I2.10.20011. 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 superior oflicers 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." 6.

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 Pradeshs 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 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 2 zOzO sCC online s,c. 341 3 (2008) 2 SCC 409 4 (2006) 1 SCC 627

-4included 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 it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution." 7 .

Following the above decisions, this writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies on the issue of non-registration of crime stated to have been reported by him on 18. 10.2020. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT RE G TRAR //TRUE COPY'

SECTION FFICER To, '1 . One CC to M/s. Barkha Bhalla, Advocate IOPIC] i. i;; dd.'t,i'GC toi nome, High court for ihe State of relangana at HYderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies SM \ -\--

HIGH COURT DATED:1811212020 HE SIA { Il + t o,J ('] 3 0 DEC Z0Z0 2i .A t It ;ll

ORDER

WP.No.21608 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WP @ *fl"

WITHOUT COSTS