Guru Thipperudraswamy v. The State Of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24344 OF 2020 Between Guru Thipperudraswamy, S/o of N.B. Rudramani, Rlo of 2t9lBO, Duda A Block, Devaraj U.R,S. Layout, Opposite Kerosene Bunk, Davanagere, pin 577006, Karnataka, ...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of-Telang919, Represented by its principal Secretary to Government for Home Affairs, Lakidapul, Hyderabad'500004, T.S.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cybgrabad, a pl21 , Old Mumbai Hwy, Next to Care Hospital 2-4& Sri Shyam Nagai, Telecom Nagar Extension, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500032,

3. The D.C.P., Ivladhapur, tttT Juction, Beside JNIDB, BHEL Rd, Gachibowti, Telangana 500032

4. The Assistant commissioner of P_olice, Ivladhapur, Near Kavuri Hills, Hitech city Rd, IVadhapur, Telangana 500033 5 The Station House officer, Gachibowli police station, lllr Juction, Beside JNIDB, BHEL Rd, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500032, T.S ...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 issues a writ order or directron more so in the nature of a writ of lt4andamus to order and Direct the Respondents, and particularly the Respondent No 5 herein, to register a First lnformation crime Report, and take action according to law against the Accused person, and this court may be pleased. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 15'1 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to order and direct the Respondents and particularly the Respondent No 5 herein, to assist in the recovery of the vehicle involved in the matter according to law and this court may be pleased.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAROSH BASTAWALA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.2 4344 of 2O2O ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2.

This writ petition is filed alleging that even though cognizable crime was reported on 13.11.2020 sent through e-mail and on 15.1i.2020 physically, so far, crime is not registered. 3.

The grievance of petitioner is against non-registration of crime, even though cognizabie crime is reported. If the petitioner had grievance against non-registration of crime, he 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 dccisions on the subjcct and the scope of provisions of thc Codc o1' Crimin.rl Procedure, morc particularly, Sections 1 56, 190 and 20O 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 arested and charge sheet/final report must be filed 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 reportodJnore time is consumed to collect 20r9 (3) AL',I r39

J required dat.r/information to assess the nature of crime, number of docllments 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 oI 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 superior 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.'

This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J M.subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and another2. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court af{irmed 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.

"17. In our opinion Section 156{3) Cr'P C. is wide enough to include all such porvers in a Magistrate rvhich are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the po$'er to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation il 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. ln other words, when anv 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 t 2o2o scc online s.c. 341 3 {2008) 2 SCC 409 '' {2006) I SCC 627

l it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or emplot, 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 u,ork out his remedies on the issue ol non - registration of crime stated to have been reported by him on 13.1 1.2020 and 15.11.2020. pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

SD/-K.ONE ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER \ To,

1. One CC to Sri Sarosh Bastawala, Advocate [OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies SM d

HIGH COURT DATED:3111212020 s I 3 06JAt't2021

ORDER

WP.No.24344 ol 2020 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS s 6.