Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 480 (TS)

Mandava Janakiram v. State Of Telangana

2020-06-12

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT T.Vinod Kumar, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in harassing the petitioner, though the petitioner is not connected with any crime and not handing over the registration certificate of Car bearing No. AP 16 FK 1008 and making illegal demands, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The present writ petition is taken up for hearing today, i.e. 12.06.2020, through Video Conferencing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 4. The brief facts of the case as stated are, the petitioner who is claimed to be a resident of Ventrapragada village, in Krishna District, State of Andhra Pradesh, is not involved in any case, but his friend by name Gottam Praneeth, against whom a case of cheating is registered and being investigated, was using his car bearing registration no. AP 16FK 1008, on hire, and the 2nd respondent authority has taken custody of the said vehicle and released the same subsequently on petitioner approaching the 2nd respondent authority and executing undertaking to co-operating with the investigation and inspite of the same, the 2nd respondent authority is not returning the RC Book of the Vehicle of the above mentioned Car and are making illegal demands. It is also further stated that the respondent police authorities are making regular calls to the petitioner on his mobile and the 2nd respondent has deputed 2 constables to Vijayawada on 16.03.2020, thus constrained to file the present writ petition. 5. Per contra, the Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has forwarded to this Court by e-mail a copy of the written instructions under the signature of Sub-Inspector of Police, Kachiguda police station. By the said written instructions, it is stated that on the complaint lodged by one Ms. Pavitra Gonchigar on 05.02.2020 with the Station House officer, Kachiguda Police Station against one Rajesh Kumar and others with regard to cheating, a case was registered in Crime No. 35 of 2020 under Section 420 IPC and investigation has been taken up by the Detective Inspector of police. Pavitra Gonchigar on 05.02.2020 with the Station House officer, Kachiguda Police Station against one Rajesh Kumar and others with regard to cheating, a case was registered in Crime No. 35 of 2020 under Section 420 IPC and investigation has been taken up by the Detective Inspector of police. In the course of investigation, A-1 in his confession statement dated 25.02.2020 confessed that he cheated the complainant under the guise of marriage and collected amount of Rs.81 lakhs from her and thereafter, an amount of Rs.9.64,000/- was transferred in favour of the petitioner and his family members bank accounts on different dates. Pursuant to the said confession statement, the investigating authority tried to secure the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation. But, the petitioner instead of cooperating with the investigating agency, filed the present writ petition with baseless allegations. 6. In so far as the claim of the petitioner with regard to the 2nd respondent police authority harassing the petitioner and not handing over the registration certificate of Car bearing No. AP16FK 1008 and making illegal demands is concerned, by the said instructions, the said allegation has been denied and stated that the 2nd respondent authority has never taken the registration certificate of Car bearing No. AP16FK 1008 at any point of time, and as such handing over the registration certificate to the petitioner does not arise. 7. Learned AGP would further submit that it appears the petitioner is also arrayed as one of the accused in the Crime No. 35 of 2020, registered in the 2nd respondent police station and in order to prevent the police authorities from taking any action against the petitioner in the above case, the petitioner has come up with the theory of respondent police taking the custody of petitioner vehicle RC Book and when demanded for return of the same, making illegal demands. 8. Having regard to the said submission made as above, the main grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition relates to respondent authorities having taken away the RC - book of the petitioner car vehicle bearing No. AP 16 FK 1008 and not handing over the same to the petitioner, though no case is registered against him. 8. Having regard to the said submission made as above, the main grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition relates to respondent authorities having taken away the RC - book of the petitioner car vehicle bearing No. AP 16 FK 1008 and not handing over the same to the petitioner, though no case is registered against him. Though, it is being claimed by the petitioner that no case is registered against him, the affidavit filed into this court is bereft of details as to how and why the petitioner has executed an undertaking to co-operate with the investigation. Further, on one hand petitioner claims that the authorities having returned the car, are not returning the RC Book of the Vehicle, on the other hand claims that the authorities are making calls regularly and also deputed 2 constables to Vijayawada for him on 16.03.2020, would in itself show the contradictory claims being made by the petitioner. If the 2nd respondent authority has taken the RC Book of the petitioner's car and not returning the same despite the involvement of the petitioner not being there, in any case, it is un comprehensible as to why the petitioner executed undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and 2nd respondent authority making calls and also deputing the constables to Vijayawada looking for the petitioner. Thus, the entire endeavour of the petitioner prima facie appears to secure some order from this court in restraining the police authorities from taking action against the petitioner for his involvement in the crime registered and being investigated into against petitioner's friend and others and has come with the theory of the 2nd respondent authority making illegal demands for returning the RC book of his car. 9. 9. However, refraining from expressing any opinion on such contradictory claim made by the petitioner, and confining to the relief sought for in the present writ petition viz., seeking return of the RC Book of the vehicle (car) bearing registration No. AP16FK 1008, as no material placed before this Court to show that the 2nd respondent having taken the said RC - book from the petitioner or his friend and in view the specific denial by the 2nd respondent through the written instructions of having taken the RC Book of the petitioner's car, no further orders need be passed, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities and obtain duplicate copy of RC book on the strength of this order. 10. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.