Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 711 (TS)

Manchikatla Satyanarayana v. State Of Telangana

2020-10-01

P.NAVEEN RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT P. Naveen Rao, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 2. According to petitioners, they are the owners of land to an extent of Acs.11.06 guntas in Survey No.595 of Jangaon Village, Ramagundam Mandal. Petitioners allege that some miscreants and land grabbers have manipulated the revenue records and in the guise of manipulating the revenue records, they are threatening to encroach and dispossess the petitioners and were also attempting to construct compound wall. In spite of filing several complaints to various authorities, so far crimes are not registered causing lot of hardship and suffering to the petitioners. 3. In this writ petition, petitioners prayed to declare the action of the respondents in not taking any action on the complaints lodged by the petitioners on 19.02.2019, 09.08.2019, 25.09.2019, 11.11.2019, 20.11.2019 and 18.06.2020 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to register the crimes and to proceed under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 against the land grabbers. 4. In Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and Others, (2019) 3 ALT 139 , all aspects of crime and remedies available were elaborately considered including the remedy available to an aggrieved person against non-registration of crime. 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]. 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 SCConline(SC) 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 petitioners to work out their remedies on the issue of non-registration of crime stated to have been reported by the petitioners on 19.02.2019, 09.08.2019, 25.09.2019, 11.11.2019, 20.11.2019 and 18.06.2020. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.