K. Veera Raghava Reddy, v. State Of Telangana Rep.By Its Principal Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.30494 OF 2015 ORDER:

There is no representation on behalf of the party-in-person. 2.

The prayer sought in the Writ Petition is as under: " ....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in not registering a case on petitioner complaint dated 31.7.2015 against Respondent No.5 and 6 for cheating and breach of trust and dereliction of duties by Redirecting my complaint as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to register petitioner complaint dated 31.7.2015 against Respondent No.5 & 6 forthwith." 3.

During the course of hearing, learned GP placed on record, the written instructions dated 6.10.2015 issued by the Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. The same are made part of the record.

4.

From a perusal of the said instructions, it is revealed that the party-in person sent a petition dated 31.7.2015 to the Station House Office, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad through post stating that he has given a complaint dated 7.9.2014 to His Excellency, the Governor complaining about the mal-functioning of Telangana State Police in accepting his complaints dated 14.6.2014 and 1.7.2014. Instead of registering the complaint under Section 8 of the A.P. State Re-organization Act, 2014, on the advise of Sri APVN Sharma and A.K. Mahanthi, Advisors to His Excellency the Governor, the said complaint was wrongly directed to the Telangana State Police and higher authorities for disposing at their end. On receipt of said complaint, an entry was made in the

Station General Diary. The Joint Secretary to His Excellency, the Governor, vide proceedings dated 8.1.2014 informed the party-inperson that his petition dated 7.9.2014 has already been forwarded to the Home Department and was advised to pursue the matter with the concerned. Even the Government of Telangana, Home Department, vide memo dated 15.10.2014, instructed the Director General of Police to examine the contents of the said petition submitted by the party-in-person and take necessary action in the matter under due information to the Government. Pursuant to the said instructions, the Director General of Police, Telangana issued memo dated 29.10.2014 asking the commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to call for a report on the petition against Sri Mohd.

Munawar, CI of Police and other police officials of Golconda Police Station for their inaction. It is further mentioned that there are no cognizable contents in the complaint dated 31.7.2015 submitted by the party-in-person. It is also elicited during the course of preliminary enquiry that the party-in-person is in the habit of lodging complaints and used to threaten the police officers and officials working in the State of Telangana alleging that they are not discharging their legitimate duties properly and blackmailing them. In fact, in the written instructions, as many as, six complaints have been mentioned, which are said to have been submitted by the party-in-person.

5.

Be that as it may, when the respondent police have not registered a crime pursuant to his complaints, as per the procedure contemplated under Chapter-XII of Cr.P.C., it is always open for the

party-in-person to invoke Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C. by way of filing a complaint under Section 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. 6.

In Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India and others1, the Apex Court had considered the similar issue and held as under:

" 6. " 4. When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate, after recording evidence, finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/ evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and could issue process to the accused.

These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd) v. Union of India ((1996) 11 SCC 582). It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. The above position was again highlighted in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 7 SCC 768], Minu Kumari and another v. State of Bihar and others ((2006) 4 SCC 359) and Hari Singh v. State of U.P. (2006 (5) SCC 733).

7.

Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (supra) and reiterated in Gangadhar case (supra) the remedy available is as set 1 (2007) 6 SCC 171

out above by filing a c omplaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (supra), Gangadhar case (supra), Hari Singh case (supra), Minu Kumari case (supra) and Ramesh Kumari case (supra), we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case (supra) related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. In Ramesh Kumari case (supra) the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (supra), Gangadhar case (supra), Minu Kumari case (supra) and Hari Singh case (supra). The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case (supra) was re- iterated in Lallan Chaudhary and others v.

State of Bihar (AIR 2006 SC 3376). The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case (supra), Gangadhar case (supra), Hari Singh case (supra) and Minu Kumari case (supra). The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to its notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code. It appears that in the present case initially the case was tagged by order dated 24.02.2003 with WP(C) 530/ 2002 and WP(C) 221/ 2002. Subsequently, these writ petitions were de-linked from the aforesaid writ petitions.

8. The writ petitions are finally disposed of with the following directions:

(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed.

(2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions.

(3) So far as non-grant of sanction aspect is concerned, it is for the government concerned to deal with the prayer. The government concerned

would do well to deal with the matter within three months from the date of receipt of this order. (4) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case." In Hari Singh vs. State of U.P.2, the Apex Court held as under: " When the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code.

In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/ evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. These aspects have been highlighted by this Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India ((1996) 11 SCC 582). It was specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained."

7.

The above said proposition was also considered in Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala and others3 wherein it was held that wherever there is inaction on the part of the police to act on the complaint and follow the procedure under Chapter XII of the Code, it is for the aggrieved party to file a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. 8.

The grievance of the party-in-person is that respondent No.4 is not taking any action pursuant to his complaint dated 31.7.2015. In such a situation, the party-in-person has got every right to invoke 2 (2006) 5 SCC 733 3 (2008) 3 SCC 542

the powers under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., and file a complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to look into the complaint in compliance with the procedure contemplated in Chapter XV of the Code. Therefore, the course left open to the party-in-person is to approach the concerned Magistrate by invoking the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code. The party-in-person cannot straight away file the writ petition without invoking the provisions of Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition, as filed is not maintainable.

8.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

__________________ P. KESHAVA RAO,J Date: 6.12.2018 KPM