THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Date:06-02-2007 WRIT PETITION Nos.21709 of 2005; 2894, 3328, 9934, 15094, 21905, 23663, 26548, 26658, 27209 of 2006 and 884, 905, 1109, 1112, 1533, 1802, 1847 and 1872 of 2007 WRIT PETITION No. 21709 OF 2005 BETWEEN P.Vasanth Kumar S/o Ravinder Kumar, R/o Sagar Complex, H.B.Colony, Moula Ali, Ranga Reddy District. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2. Mr.Seetharam, Inspector of Police, Kushaiguda Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Mr.Sampath Goud @ Sampath Kumar, 202, Sagar Residency, H.B.Colony, Moula Ali, Ranga Reddy District. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No.2894 of 2006 BETWEEN Jatiya Santhi Sangam, a Regd. Society, Bearing No.315 of 1995, Rep. by its President, P. Suryanarayana, Guntur District. …PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District and another. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 3328 OF 2006 BETWEEN Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd., Kamareddy (Regd.No.19926) Nizamabad District, Rep.by its Chairman D.Ramachander. …PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P., through S.H.O., PS., Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 2. The State of A.P., Rep.by Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad. 3. Sri B. Muralidhar S/o Sri Vedam, 35 years, Sub Inspector of Police, Kamareddy Police Station, Nizamabad District. … RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No.9934 of 2006 BETWEEN Nallapti Sailaja, S/o. Srinivasarao, R/o. Jaggadiguntapalem, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. …PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District and another. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 15094 OF 2006 BETWEEN Pesala Madhusudhan Rao S/o Pullaiah, Occ: Business, R/o Pamuru village and Mandal, Dist: Prakasam. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Station House Officer, Pamuru Post & mandal, Pamuru, District: Prakasam. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Prkasam. 3. Yadala Venkata Sesha Rao S/o Late Yadala Venkata Narayana, Occ: Ex-Sarpanch & Business, R/o Pamur village & Mandal of Prakasam District. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 21905 OF 2006 BETWEEN P.Laxminarasamma W/o P.Chandraiah, R/o Mogiligadda (v) Farooq Nagar (m), Mahaboobnagar Dist. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Station House Officer, P.S. Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar Dist. 4. The Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. 5. The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 23663 OF 2006 BETWEEN S.M. Ramakrishna Goud, S/o late S.M. Ramulu Goud, R/o 17-7-352, Brahmanawadi, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Station House Officer, Kanchanbag P.S., Hyderabad 2. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 3. M. Chandraiah Goud S/o Mallaiah Goud, President, TCS., Champapeta Hyderabad. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 26548 OF 2006 BETWEEN 1. Pallamala Nagaraju S/o Nagaiah, Occ: Agriculture labour, R/o Palamala village, Chilakur Mandal, Nellore District. 2. P. Seenaiah S/o Bakkaiah, Occ: Agriculture labour, R/o Palamala village, Chilakur Mandal, Nellore District. …PETITIONERS AND 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Nellore District, Nellore. 4. C. Manikya Rao S/o not known, Station House Officer, Chillakur Police Station, Challakur Mandal, Nellore District. 5. Nazeer Basha S/o not known, Head Constable, Chillakur Police Station, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 6. Ramana Reddy S/o note known, Police Constable, Chillakur Police Station, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 7. Sri Suresh S/o not known, Police Constable, Chillakur Police Station, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 8. Krishna S/o not known Police Constable, Chillakur Police Station, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 9. Srinivasulu S/o not known, Police Constable, Chillakur Police Station, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 10. Subrahmanyam S/o not known, Police Constable, Chillakur Police Station, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 11. Venkateshwarlu S/o not known, Police Constable, Chillakur Police Station, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 12. Narayana S/o not known, Police Constable, Chillakur Police Station, Chillakur Mandal, Nellore District. 13. Seshaiah S/o not known, Police Constable and other Constables from Chillakur Police Station, Nellore District. 14. Perugu Siva Jyothi Kumar S/o Guravaiah, Subhash Chandra Bose Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore District. 15. Perugu Sivarama Prasad S/o Guruvaiah, D.E.E (Electrical), Guntur-1, Guntur District. 16. Uppala Ravi S/o Ramaiah, Kovuruvari Palem village, Chilakur Mandal, Nellore District. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 26658 OF 2006 BETWEEN Guguloth Sankil W/o Parshu, Occ: Labour, R/o Harichand Thanda of Vennaram village, Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District. …PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Superintendent of Police, Warangal District. 2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobabad, Warangal District. 3. Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornakal P.S., Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District. 4. N.Chandra Bhanu S/o Roujya, age 35 years, Occ: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornakal P.S., Dornakal Mandal, Warangal District. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 27209 OF 2006 BETWEEN Smt. P. Rambayamma W/o Anjaiah, Occ: Household, R/o Chinnanallaballi (v) Dummagudem (M), Khammam District. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Khammam. 2. Station House Officer, Dummagudem P.S., at Dummagudem, Khammam District. 3. Sri Kanithi Venkateswara Rao S/o Chenchaiah, aged 35 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Chinnanallaballi (v), Dummagudem (M), Khammam District. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 884 OF 2007 BETWEEN Katepalli Ramachandra Rao S/o late Sangaiah, Occ: Business, M/s. Sri Gopalakrishna Timber Depot, door No.26-9-12/1, Nagarampalem, Guntur, R/o H.No.26-9-18, Vijayalakshmi Theatre, Gundiaraopet, Guntur. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakidikapul, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District. 5. The Station House Officer, Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur. 6. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem Police Station, Nagarampalem, Guntur. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 905 OF 2007 BETWEEN 1. Smt. Kaneez Fathima W/o late Dhairyavangir, 2. Smt. Jameela D/o late Raja Dhairyavangir, 3. Smt. Najma D/o late Raja Dhairiyavangi, 29 years. (All are R/o 4-2-15, Isa Khan Bagh, Vikarabad, R.R. District). …PETITIONERS AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Vikarabad R.R.District. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 1109 OF 2007 BETWEEN Ameena Begum W/o M.A. Rahim, R/o H.No.5-1-2, Near Hotel Surya Palace, Coolie Lane, Bhajan Mandir Road, Kothagudem, Khammam District. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Station House Officer, III-Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Khammam, Khammam District. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 1112 OF 2007 BETWEEN 1. Adi Ramakistaiah S/o Mallaiah, R/o Village and Mandal Doulatabad, District Medak at Sangareddy. 2. Adi Mangamma W/o Adi Ramakistaiah, Housewife, R/o Village and Mandal Doulatabad, District Medak at Sangareddy. …PETITIONERS AND 1. Superintendent of Police, Medak at Sangareddy. 2. Sub Inspector of Police, Doulatabad, Medak District. 3. Sub Inspector of Police, Gajwel, Medak District. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 1533 OF 2007 BETWEEN M/s. Gem Granites (P) Limited, rep. by its Regional Manager R. Gunasekharam S/o G. Raju, # 76, Cathedral Road, Chennai. …PETITIONER AND 1. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2. The Station House Officer, Chimakurthy Police Station, Prakasam. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITON No.1802 of 2007 BETWEEN V.P.S. Dwivedhy, S/o. V. N. Sasthry, Occ: Veda Parayana Pandit, R/o. H.No.9-4-107/1, Bhagwanth Rao Nagar, Vemulawada, District Karimnagar. …PETITONER AND Inspector of Police, Maheshwaram Police Station, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District and another. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No.1847 OF 2007 BETWEEN Sr. M.M. Vasu, S/o. M. Keshava Rao, Occ: Journalist, R/o. 1-24-21/4, Sri Sai Nagar, Lothukunta, Secunderabad. …PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and another. …RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No.1872 of 2007 BETWEEN Alluri Jyothi, W/o. Srinivasa Raju, Occ: Housewife, R/o.134/B, Asra Housing Society, Hudgi Road, Sholapur, Maharastra. …PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and others. …RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: In all these writ petitions, similar questions are involved and therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the concerned Station House oﬃcers of the Police Stations in not registering the written representations made by them as illegal and arbitrary and to direct them to register cases, investigate the same and file final reports. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that in spite of making written representations before the concerned Station House Officers, marking copies to the superior police officials, no crime has been registered and the oﬃcial respondents have failed to discharge their statutory duties and therefore, they seek to issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned police oﬃcials to register the crime and investigate the same. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the oﬃcial respondents submits that there is suﬃcient alternative mechanism available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) and none of the petitioners have taken recourse under the relevant provisions of the Code and therefore, it may not be appropriate to issue writ of mandamus. 5. Sections 154 to 176 under Chapter XII of the Code deals with the information to the police and their powers to investigate. Sections 177 to 189 of Chapter XIII deals with the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 190 to 199 of Chapter XIV deals with the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Sections 200 to 203 of Chapter XV deals with the complaints to Magistrates. Sections 204 to 210 of Chapter XVI deals with the commencement of proceedings before the Magistrates. 6. The substance of every written information relating to the commission of cognizable oﬀence given to an oﬃcer in charge of the Police Station shall be entered in General Diary. A copy of such information as recorded in the General Diary as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code shall be given forthwith, free of cost to the informant. If the oﬃcer in charge of the Police Station refuses to record such information, the person aggrieved by such refusal may send the substance of such written information either by post or in person to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if satisﬁed that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable oﬀence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police oﬃcer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by the Code and such oﬃcer shall have all the powers of an oﬃcer in charge of the Police Station in relation to that offence. Information received even in respect of non-cognizable oﬀences, the substance of such information shall also be entered in the General Diary, but without the orders of the Magistrate, such oﬀences cannot be investigated. Where the cases relate to two or more oﬀences, of which at least one is cognizable, the cases shall be deemed to be cognizable cases notwithstanding that the other oﬀences are non cognizable, the oﬃcer in charge of the Police Station is entitled to investigate both cognizable as well as non cognizable oﬀences without any order of the Magistrate and ﬁle a report. 7. The allegations in all these cases are about the information of committing of cognizable oﬀences. Under Section 156(1) of the Code, any oﬃcer-in-charge of a Police Station may investigate the cognizable case, which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provision of Chapter XIII. The oﬃcer in charge of the police Station shall also investigate the cognizable case on the order of the Magistrate passed under Section 190 of the Code. Under Section 157 of the Code, if the officer in charge of the Police Station has reason to suspect the commission of such oﬀence within the limits of the Police Station, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to the concerned Magistrate and shall proceed to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, but however, if such information as to the commission of the oﬀence is not of a serious nature, immediate spot investigation is not necessary and if there is no suﬃcient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case. Under Section 157(2) of the Code, wherever the oﬃcer in charge of the Police Station decides not to make an investigation or that there is no suﬃcient ground for entering into investigation, he shall notify to the informant about his decision for not investigating the case. Every report under Section 157 of the Code shall be sent to the Magistrate through the superior oﬃcer of the police and on such report, the superior oﬃcer may give necessary instructions and shall forward such instructions on such report to the Magistrate. 8. On receipt of such report, the Magistrate may direct an investigation or, if he thinks ﬁt, he can proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into or otherwise to dispose of the case in the manner provided in the Code. In other words, if the report shows that a cognizable oﬀence has been committed, he may take cognizance under Section 190(b) of the Code and proceed further to dispose of the case in the manner provided under the Code and if such report discloses that no case has been committed, he can make a preliminary enquiry with regard to the report and also redirect an investigation and if he satisﬁes with the report, he may accept the report also. 9. Under Section 172 of the Code, every police oﬃcer making an investigation under Chapter XII shall enter day-by-day proceedings in a Diary. Under Section 173 of the Code, every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay and after its completion he shall forward the report in the prescribed form to the Magistrate. Even after submitting the report under Section 173 of the Code, if any further evidence is received, further investigation can be made and further report or reports regarding such evidence shall be forwarded to the Magistrate. 10. Under Section 190 of the Code a) upon receipt of a complaint of facts ﬁled under Section 200 of the Code the Magistrate may take cognizance of such oﬀences, b) upon a police report of such facts, and c) upon information received from any person other than a police oﬃcer, or upon his own knowledge, that such oﬀence has been committed. Thus, Section 190 clearly goes to show that the basis for a Magistrate to take cognizance of cognizable oﬀence is based upon a private complaint ﬁled under Section 200 of the Code after examining the complaint and witnesses and upon police reports received under Section 173 of the Code and also upon information received from any person or upon his own knowledge that such oﬀence has been committed; while dealing with any case before him. 11. Section 200 of the Code independently empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of an oﬀence on a complaint other than a police report. Whenever a complaint has been ﬁled under Section 200 of the Code the Magistrate either can take cognizance after examining the complainant and the witnesses under Section 190(a) and issue process commencing the proceedings under Section 204 or postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police oﬃcer or by such other person as he thinks ﬁt, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is suﬃcient ground for proceeding and or he can as well dismissed the complaint under Section 203 if there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding. 12. Under Section 210 of the Code when a complaint is pending and investigation by the police is in progress in respect of the same oﬀence than the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings in the complaint case and call for a report on the matter from the police oﬃcer conducting investigation. After ﬁling a report if any cognizance is taken by the Magistrate against the accused in a complaint case the Magistrate shall also enquire into and try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. Under Section 210(3) of the Code if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any oﬀence on the police report, he shall proceed with the enquiry or trial which was stopped by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Code. 13. While considering the object of enacting Section 210 of the Code the Apex Court in SANKARAN MOITRA v. SADHNA DAS[1] at Paras 75 to 80 held that during an enquiry or trial relating to complaint case, if it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in respect of the same, he shall stay the proceedings of the complaint case and call for the report of the police oﬃcer conducting the investigation. The object of Section 210 is intended to ensure that private complaint do not interfere with the course of justice, which prevents harassment to the accused and which obviates anomalies which might arise from taking cognizance of the same oﬀence more than once. To invoke Section 210 of the Code the following conditions must be satisfied: i. There must be a complaint pending for enquiry under trial; ii. Investigation by the police must be in progress in relation to the same offence; iii. A report must be made by the police oﬃcer under Section 173; and iv. The Magistrate must have taken cognizance of an oﬀence against a person who is an accused in the complaint case. 14. The analysis of the aforesaid relevant provisions of the Code goes to show that in the absence of any action taken by a police oﬃcer in charge of a police station on a written information furnished by any person, such person can bring it to the notice of the Superintendent of Police and in such cases, the SP either investigate the case by himself or entrust the matter to any police oﬃcer subordinate to him. On a written information furnished by a person about a cognizable oﬃce, if no action has been taken by the oﬃcer in charge of the police station by entering the said information in the general diary or fails to register a cognizable case under Sections 154 to 157 of the Code, it is open for such person to ﬁle a complaint under Section 200 of the Code before the concerned Magistrate. Under Section 200 of the Code a complaint can directly be ﬁled even without approaching the concerned oﬃcer in charge of the police station. If any such complaint is ﬁled before the Magistrate without furnishing any written information to the oﬃcer in charge of the police station about commission of a cognizable oﬀence, the course open to the Magistrate after examining the complainant and witnesses either to take cognizance under Section 190(a) of the Code or refer the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation and report or taken recourse under Section 202 of the Code or dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code as stated above. 15. Whereas if any written information is furnished to the oﬃcer in charge of the police station, the substance of such information shall be entered in the book under Section 154 of the Code and if the oﬃcer in charge of the police station has a reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable oﬀence he shall immediately enter the same in the FIR register and send the same to the concerned Magistrate and proceed to investigate forthwith without there being lapse of time, as there is a statutory duty cast on the investigating oﬃcer to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay. But whereas in urgent cases where immediate investigation is required and in such cases instead of furnishing written information to the concerned oﬃcer in charge of the police station so as to enable them to immediately send the FIR to the Magistrate and to proceed and investigate and in such cases, where the complaint is ﬁled before the concerned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code some delay is bound to occur as the Magistrate has to examine the complainant and the witness before taking appropriate action. In all cases, where there is no urgency it may not be possible for the police to proceed to the spot and investigate the facts and circumstances; take measures for discovery and arrest the oﬀender, but the powers of the Magistrate under the Code are wider than the oﬃcer in charge of the police station for taking cognizance of any oﬀence. Even in cases where investigation is pending; complaint can also be ﬁled before the concerned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code, in which case the Magistrate instead of proceeding with enquiry or trial in the complaint case he can call for the report on the matter from the police oﬃcer conducting investigation and thereafter proceed on both private complaint as well as the police report treating both cases as instituted as a police report. Thus, I am of the opinion that there is eﬀective alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the Code itself to set criminal action in motion and instead of taking the aforesaid recourse, it is not just and proper for the petitioners to straightway approach this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the concerned Station House Oﬃcers to register the FIR and investigate the matter. 16. In all cases, it may not be just and necessary to register FIR and investigate the matter and the police oﬃcer is entitled to apply his mind and take a decision to come to a conclusion whether there are reasons to suspect the commission of cognizable offence. If the police oﬃcer fails to register FIR or fails to receive written information by entering into the general diary it is always open to such persons to ﬁle a complaint immediately before the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the statutory duty of the oﬃcer in charge of the police station to register FIR and investigate the matter upon receipt of a written information and when the oﬃcer in charge of the police station fails to perform his duty there is no other course open to the petitioners except to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief directing the police oﬃcers to register the FIR and investigate the cognizable cases based on the written representations. 18. They have relied on two judgments of the Apex Court Viz. STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL [2] and MOHINDRO v. STATE OF PUNJAB [3] . In Bhajan Lal’s case the matter relates to quashing of criminal proceedings initiated by the police. In the said case the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings inclusive of registration of information report against which the State of Haryana ﬁled civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dealt with various arguments relating to cognizable oﬀences warranting registration of cases as contemplated under Section 154(1) of the Code demanding thorough investigation in compliance with various statutory provisions particularly Sections 156, 157 and 159 of the Code falling under Chapter XII. The legal mandate enshrined under Section 154(1) of the Code is that every information relating to commission of cognizable oﬀence, the substance of which shall be entered in the prescribed book and the oﬃcer in charge of the police station is statutorily obliged to register the case and then proceed to investigate if he has reason to suspect commission of oﬀence after sending the report to the concerned Magistrate. For recording the ﬁrst information report there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable oﬀence. If any information disclosing a cognizable oﬀence is laid before the oﬃcer in charge of the police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code the said oﬃcer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed book, that is to say, to register the case on the basis of such information. The commencement of investigation by the police oﬃcer is subject to the condition that the police oﬃcer should have reason to suspect the