Telangana High CourtGaddela Vinay Kumar vs Uppu Rayamallu on 7 October, 2020Author:P. Naveen RaoBench:P. Naveen RaoTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO\n\n               WRIT PETITION No.17143 OF 2020\n\n                        Date:07.10.2020\n\nBetween:\nGaddela Vinay Kumar, S/o. Late Premaiah,\nAged 62 years, H.No.4-4-46, Karimnagar\nRoad, Peddapalli Town, Peddapalli\nMandal and District                        .. Petitioner\n\n\n       And\n\nUppu Rayamallu, S/o. Late Ramaiah,\nAged 76 years, R/o. Karimnagar Road,\nPeddapalli and others                      .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\nThe Court made the following:\n                                                 2\n\n\n                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO\n\n                          WRIT PETITION No.17143 OF 2020\nORDER:Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant\n\nGovernment Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 6 to 10.2.         This        writ   petition    is   filed   alleging   that     even   though\n\na cognizable crime was reported by the petitioner on 22.10.2019\n\nbefore the Sub Inspector of Police, Peddapally Town, respondent\n\nNo.6, against respondents 1 to 5, respondent No.6 has not received\n\nthe complaint and crime is not registered, causing lot of hardship\n\nand suffering to the petitioner.3.         If   the      petitioner      had   grievance    against      non-registration\n\nof crime, he has an effective and efficacious remedy under theCriminal Procedure Code. Therefore, petitioner has to avail the\n\nremedy available in law, before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.4.         The very issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.38397\n\nof 2019 and batch inGovind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and\n\nOthers1. On consideration of the precedent decisions on the subject\n\nand the scope of provisions of theCode of Criminal Procedure, more\n\nparticularly,Sections 156,190and200of Cr.P.C., this Court held as\n\nunder:"34. Having regard to law propounded by Supreme Court, it is no\n           more open for any one to contend that unless a report is filed\n           aggrieved person is without remedy. It is also no more open to\n           contend that once crime is registered accused must be arrested and\n           charge sheet/final report must be filed as a matter of course.\n           Further, delay in completing the investigation can be for various\n           reasons. Police may be waiting for forensic report/Medical report/the\n           accused is absconding/having regard to complex nature of crime\n           reported more time is consumed to collect required data/information12019 (3) ALT 1393to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or\n          witnesses are more. While determining delay, it is necessary to\n          consider each case on its facts having regard to attending\n          circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and\n          witnesses etc [Mahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar Appeal (Civil) No.\n          1038 of 2001 dated 12.10.2001]. The jurisdictional Magistrate shall\n          have all material facts in issue at his command to assess the issue\n          and shall be competent to go into all aspects when matters are\n          brought before him and to take appropriate decision. It is also within\n          the competence of superior officers to assess the conduct of Station\n          House Officer and to take remedial action whenever there is\n          deliberate and unexplained delay in investigation and filing of final\n          report."5.        This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inM.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janakiand another2.Inthe\n\nsaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken\n\nby the Supreme Court inSakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh3andMohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan4and held as under:"17. In our opinionSection 156(3)Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include\n          all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a\n          proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration\n          of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is\n          satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not\n          being done by the police.Section 156(3)Cr.P.C., though briefly\n          worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such\n          incidental   powers   as   are   necessary   for   ensuring   a   proper\n          investigation."6.        Following the above decisions, this writ petition is dismissed\n\ngranting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies on the\n\nissue of non-registration of crime stated to have been reported\n\nby the petitioner on 22.10.2019. Pending miscellaneous petitions\n\nshall stand closed.____________________\n                                                                P. NAVEEN RAO, J\nDate:07.10.2020\nKH22020 SCC online S.C. 341\n3   (2008) 2 SCC 409\n4   (2006) 1 SCC 6274THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO\n\n\n\n\n         WRIT PETITION No.17143 OF 2020\n\n                 Date:07.10.2020\n\nKH