Telangana High Court

S.Rama Devi vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2025

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                     AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                    WRIT APPEAL No.1299 of 2024

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)

This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant

invoking the provisions of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent

aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.2723 of 2021, by which the writ petition

filed by the appellant was disposed of.

2. Heard Mr. Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel for the

appellant, Mr.L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr. Krishna Redddy Putta, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.6 and 7 and Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned

Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal briefly stated are

that the appellant is tenant of premises bearing H.No.6-2-1471,

situated at Ramagiri, opposite to Women's College, Nalgonda Town

and District and respondent No.6 is the owner and she is running

a shop under the name and style of "M/s.Sri Satya Durga

Industries". The appellant averred that initially an agreement was

entered between the daughter of the appellant, namely Sangishetty

Alekya, and respondent No.6 in the year 2015 for a period of 11

months and thereafter as per the mutual understanding between

the appellant and respondent No.6, the appellant is continuing as

tenant and she has been paying monthly rents regularly including

in covid period. In the month of September, 2020, respondent

No.6 threatened the appellant to vacate the subject premises. At

that stage, the appellant has got issued legal notice dated

30.09.2020. Thereafter, she filed suit in O.S.No.30 of 2021 before

the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, for grant of permanent

injunction restraining respondent No.6 from forcibly evicting the

appellant from the subject premises. Along with the said suit, the

appellant filed application for grant of temporary injunction.

3.2. The appellant further averred that when respondent No.7,

who is the son of respondent No.6, highhandedly threatened the

appellant to vacate the subject premises, the appellant lodged a

written complaint on 23.01.2021 before respondent No.2 and also

submitted another complaint to respondent No.4 on 24.01.2021.

However, on 30.01.2021, the subject premises was demolished at

the instance of respondent No.6 and stolen the mattresses worth

of Rs.5 lakhs and the appellant lodged a complaint on the very

same day before respondent No.2 for taking appropriate action

against respondent Nos.6 and 7. Pursuant to the said complaint

dated 30.01.2021, First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered

for the offences under Sections 427 and 439 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), however,

respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not taken any action against

respondent Nos.6 and 7.

3.3. The appellant also averred that on 01.02.2021, the

Commissioner of Nalgonda Municipality issued notice at the

instance of respondent No.6 directing the appellant to vacate the

subject premises on the ground that the subject premises is in

dangerous condition. Questioning the said notice, the appellant

filed writ petition, namely W.P.No.2711 of 2021. On 01.02.2021

the appellant submitted written complaint to respondent No.2

stating that there is danger to the life of the appellant and her

family members and requested them to initiate action against

respondent Nos.6 and 7. However, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not

taken any action. Thereafter, on 03.02.2021, the appellant

submitted another complaint to respondent No.4. The appellant

further averred that in spite of repeated complaints dated

23.01.2021, 24.01.2021, 30.01.2021, 01.02.2021 and 03.02.2021,

respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not initiated any action against

respondent Nos.6 and 7.

3.4. At that stage, the appellant approached this Court and filed

W.P.No.2723 of 2021. Learned Single Judge disposed of the said

writ petition observing that basing upon the complaint, F.I.R.No.31

of 2021 was registered and after conducting investigation filed

charge sheet for the offences under Sections 427 and 379 of IPC

and if there is any lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer, the

appellant is required to take necessary steps seeking alteration of

charges under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code,

1973. Thus, the appellant filed the present writ appeal.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant:

4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that basing

upon the complaint lodged by the appellant dated 23.01.2021,

24.01.2021, 01.02.2021 and 03.02.2021, respondent Nos.2 to 4

ought to have registered F.I.Rs. and conduct enquiry, however,

they have not taken any action. He further submitted that

respondent Nos.2 to 4 without conducting proper enquiry filed

charge sheet in F.I.R.No.31 of 2021 for only minor offences. He

further submitted that the appellant filed application in I.A.No.1 of

2021 in W.P.No.2723 of 2021 to conduct enquiry on the complaint

of the appellant dated 08.06.2021 during pendency of the writ

petition. Learned Single Judge without properly considering the

same dismissed the said application.

4.2. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of

the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar

Pradesh and others 1, and contended that respondent Nos.2 to 4

ought to have registered F.I.Rs. basing upon complaints lodged by

the appellant against respondent Nos.6 and 7.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7:

5.1. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.6 and

7 submitted that basing on the complaint dated 30.01.2021 lodged

by the appellant, F.I.R.No.31 of 2021 was registered and the

(2014) 2 SCC 1

Investigating Officer after conducting detailed investigation filed

charge sheet. The appellant raised very same allegations in all the

complaints dated 23.01.2021, 24.01.2021, 01.02.2021 and

03.02.2021.

5.2. He further submitted that in the event respondent Nos.2 to 4

have not registered the complaints and not conducted proper

investigation while filing charge sheet in F.I.R.No.31 of 2021, the

appellant is having remedy to approach the competent Magistrate

Court and also entitled to file private complaint and to take

necessary steps in C.C.No.424 of 2021 for not conducting proper

investigation while filing charge sheet in F.I.R.No.31 of 2021.

Without availing such remedy, the appellant approached this

Court and filed writ petition and the same is not maintainable

under law. Learned Single Judge rightly disposed of the writ

petition holding that the appellant is entitled to take necessary

steps seeking alteration of the charges under the provisions of

Cr.P.C.

Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record, it reveals that respondent No.6 is the owner and appellant

is tenant of the subject premises. Admittedly, the appellant has

filed suit in O.S.No.30 of 2021 before the Junior Civil Judge,

Nalgonda against respondent No.6 for grant of perpetual

injunction in respect of the subject premises. The record discloses

that basing upon the complaint dated 30.01.2021 lodged by the

appellant, Crime/F.I.R.No.31 of 2021 was registered by the

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and after completion of

investigation filed charge sheet before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate (for Prohibition and Excises Offences), Nalgonda on

12.04.2021 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.424 of 2021

and the said case is pending. The contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant that respondent No.4 without properly

investigating the case filed charge sheet for only minor offences

under Sections 427 and 379 IPC is concerned, the learned Single

Judge while disposing of the writ petition rightly held that the

appellant is entitled to take necessary steps seeking alteration of

the charges as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

7. Insofar as other contention raised by learned counsel for the

appellant that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not registered F.I.Rs.

basing on the complaints dated 23.01.2021, 24.01.2021,

01.02.2021 and 03.02.2021 is concerned, the specific claim of

respondent Nos.2 to 4 that in all the complaints, the appellant

raised similar set of facts and basing upon the complaint dated

30.01.2021, Crime/F.I.R.No.31 of 2021 was already registered and

charge sheet was also filed before the competent Magistrate Court

and the same is pending.

8. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant

Dhage 2, the Apex Court held that:

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. ((2008) 2 SCC 409), that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter.We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions

(2016) 6 SCC 277

praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.

4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court."

9. Basing upon the complaints lodged by the appellant, if

respondent Nos.2 to 4 not registered the F.I.Rs., the appellant is

having remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate Court to file

private complaint. In respect of the other claim of the appellant

that the Investigating Officer has not properly conducted

investigation and filed charge sheet in F.I.R.No.31 of 2021 is

concerned, the appellant is entitled to agitate her rights by

invoking the provisions of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.424 of 2021 pending

before the Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition and

Excise Offences), Nalgonda. The appellant without availing such

remedy straightaway approached this Court and filed the writ

petition, which is not permissible.