Kolagani Ravi vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 3548 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3548 Tel
Judgement Date : 18 November, 2021

Telangana High Court

Kolagani Ravi vs The State Of Telangana on 18 November, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                              AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY


                         WRIT APPEAL No.533 of 2020

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

23.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.16259 of 2020 by which the writ

petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner has been

dismissed.

     The facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioner has filed a

writ petition stating that though he has filed a complaint on

12.08.2020 before the Station House Officer, Mulugu Police

Station, Mulugu district/respondent No.4, no FIR has been

registered. Meaning thereby, the appellant/writ petitioner was

aggrieved by non-registration of FIR.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the order of the learned Single Judge read as

under:

"4. The very issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.38397 of 2019 and batch in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and Others (2019 (3) ALT 139). 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 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 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 12.10.2001]. 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."

5. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and another (2020 SCC Online S.C. 341). 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 (((2008) 2 SCC 409) and Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan ((2006) 1 SCC 627) and 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."

6. 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 the petitioner on 12.08.2020. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed."

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed heavy reliance

on the judgment delivered in the case of Lalitha Kumari vs.

Government of U.P. and others1 and contended that FIR has to

be registered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the

judgment delivered in the case of M. Subramaniam and another

2014 (2) SCC 1

vs. S. Janaki and another2, the question of issuing direction

directing the police authorities to register FIR does not arise and

therefore, the learned Single Judge is justified in permitting the

writ petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.

Learned Government Advocate has also argued before this

Court that in criminal jurisdiction, a writ appeal is not

maintainable keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of

Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana3.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petitioner