M/S.Adhunik Transport ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3211 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                WRIT PETITION No.12768 OF 2021

ORDER:-

      This writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the action

of the respondents in not registering the crime relating to the

offence of theft of electronic goods that took place within the

limits of the police station of 4th respondent, as illegal and

violative of provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and

consequently sought direction to the respondents to register the

F.I.R. in respect of the said offence as per the report given on

22.06.2021 to the 2nd respondent-Superintendent of Police.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass and may be

stated as follows:-

The petitioner is a company registered in the name and style

of "M/s. Adhunik Transport Organisation Limited". Its branch office

is situated at Secunderabad, which is represented by its Branch

Manager.

4. The petitioner company is doing business in logistics and its

services are engaged for transporting electronic goods from Chittoor

District of Andhra Pradesh to Bhiwandi in Maharashtra State.

Accordingly, when a lorry bearing No.GJ 15 AT 3382 which was

loaded with 16 pellets of MI 43 TVs of the petitioner company left

from Renigunta on 17-06-2021 and reached first tollgate of Jodi

Dharmapura Cross on 18-06-2021 at about 01:24 hours and halted

there till 4-00 P.M. and again when the lorry started and reached

Pathikonda at about 9-00 A.M. and started there and reached

Siruguppa Filling Station for filling fuel, the driver did not check the

seal either at Pathikonda or at Siruguppa. When he reached Dhaba

in Bijapur on 19-06-2021, he noticed that the seal was broken and

on opening the door, he found two pellets containing TVs were

missing, which are 47 in number. He came back to Pathikonda

where he halted for six hours for sleeping. He lodged a report with

Station House Officer of Pathikonda Police Station, Kurnool District

regarding theft of the said electronic goods. However, the 4th

respondent refused to register the crime stating that there is no

evidence to show that the offence took place within his jurisdiction.

Therefore, a report was given on the website of Andhra Pradesh

Police called "Spandana" on 25-06-2021. The Superintendent of

Police endorsed on it directing the 3rd respondent-Deputy

Superintendent of Police to take action as per law. Yet, no crime is

registered in this regard. Therefore, the present writ petition has

been filed questioning the said inaction on the part of the

respondent-police officials in not registering the F.I.R. and sought

the aforesaid declaration and direction.

5. Counter-affidavit on behalf of the 4th respondent-Station

House Officer of Pathikonda Police Station, was filed on behalf of the

respondents. At Para No.4 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated as

mentioned below:

"It is submitted on information given by the Driver of the lorry I left P.S. and reached Pattikonda - Adoni road side situated near Siddam fuel filling station in the outskirts of Pattikonda town at a distance of about 1.5 kms west from Pattikonda P.S. and found it is very busy road. I verified the CC footage which was fitted in Siddam fuel filling station (Bharat Petrol Bunk). I found the parking of the lorry by the side of the road on 18-06-2021 at about 09:00 am to 03:00 pm. As per CC footage the lorry was left Pattikonda on 18-06-2021 at 15:02:27 hours. Nothing was found to be happened on the backside of the Lorry which is having seal and locks of the closed container lorry bearing Registration

number GJ15AT3382. Then I left Bharat Fuel filling station Pattikonda and reached Ambedkar Circle situated on 4 road junction in the outskirts of Aspari village i.e., Kurnool - Bellary road and Pattikonda - Adoni road. I verified the CC footages which were fitted near the Ambedkar Circle on minute verification of the passing of lorry bearing registration number GJ15AT3382 on 18-06-2021 at 15:46:18 hours the closed container lorry proceeded towards Adoni side. I found the closed container which was locked and sealed on the backside of the container. It is scientifically proved that the offence was not took place at Pattikonda in between 09:00 am to 03:00 pm. The seals and locks are intact while the lorry was passing towards Adoni through Aspari 4 road junction. The same was informed to the Driver of the lorry by showing the CC footage visuals with information to lodge the complaint in the Police station where he noticed the broken seals and locks for registering the case by the concerned police officers."

6. Therefore, it is the version of the respondent-police officials,

that when an enquiry was conducted by the police, as per the

direction given by the Superintendent of Police, with reference to the

CCTV footages, at the scene of offence, it was found that no offence

of theft, as alleged, has taken place.

7. Therefore, it is now evident from the aforesaid counter-

affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-police officials that as per

the enquiry made in this regard, by the Inspector of Police, as it is

found that no offence as alleged, was committed at the scene of

offence within his jurisdiction, that the police did not register the

case.

8. Therefore, it cannot be said in the said facts and

circumstances of the case that there has been inaction on the part

of the respondent-police officials in responding to the report that

was lodged on behalf of the petitioner company in this regard.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when a

report discloses commission of a cognizable offence, that the police

have to first register the F.I.R. and then investigate and as they did

not register any such F.I.R., even if any investigation is made as

alleged in the counter-affidavit, that the same is not valid under law.

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would

submit that it is not the investigation that was done by the 4th

respondent and it is only an enquiry that was made pursuant to the

direction by the Superintendent of Police and as his enquiry

revealed that no offence of theft as alleged has taken place within

his jurisdiction, that no F.I.R. was registered.

11. A perusal of the counter-affidavit also discloses that only an

enquiry was caused pursuant to the direction be given by the

Superintendent of Police and the said enquiry revealed that no such

offence as alleged by the petitioner took place as per the CCTV

footages that was collected at the scene of offence. Therefore, in the

said facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that

there has been any inaction on the part of the respondent-police

officials in responding to the report that was lodged on behalf of the

petitioner company. So, in the said facts and circumstances of the

case, if the petitioner still feels aggrieved in this regard, he has to

pursue his other remedies available as per the provisions of the

Criminal Procedure Code.

12. It is well settled law now that a writ petition seeking direction

to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable and the petitioner has to

exhaust his other remedies available to him as per the Criminal

Procedure Code. This Court in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch,

dated 30.07.2020, based on the earlier judgments of the Honourable

Apex Court held that when the grievance of the writ petitioner is

that F.I.R. was not registered on the basis of the report that was

lodged by him, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition and

he has to exhaust other remedies available to him under the

Criminal Procedure Code. This Court has also explained the

distinction relating to the law laid down by the Honourable Apex

Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.1 case in this regard.

13. Therefore, in view of the above settled law, this Writ Petition is

dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his other legal

remedies available to him under law, if he still feels aggrieved by the

same.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Writ Petition,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date : 27-08-2021 ARR

(2014) 2 SCC 1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No.12768 OF 2021

Date : 27-08-2021

ARR