IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5804 of 2008 Between: S. Balakrishna, S/o. Srirangam, R/o. H.No. 9-137, Behind RTC Bus Stand, Aswaraopet (V&M), Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Khammam. 2 The Circle Inspector of Police, Aswaraopet Police Station, At Aswaraopet, Khammam District. 3 The Sub Inspector of Police, Aswaraopet Police Station, At Aswaraopet, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not proceeding with the investigation on the complaint dated 13-01-2008, filed by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to proceed with the investigation and take appropriate action against the responsible persons in connection with the incident allegedly taken place on 13-01-2008. Heard Sri N.V.Venu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner alleged that he inherited an extent of Ac.10.21 guntas of agricultural land in Survey Nos.1208 and 1210 of Aswaraopet Village and Mandal, Khammam District; that on 13-01-2008, when he was looking after the agricultural operations, the persons viz., P.V.Raju, Venkatrao, Saleem and 35 others came to the said land with deadly weapons and destroyed part of the standing crop, and when the petitioner sought to resist the said attempts, they threatened him with serious consequences; that he along with his servant approached respondent No.3-Police, who, in the first instance, declined to receive the complaint and later registered it as Crime No.1108 of 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that since then, respondents 2 and 3 have not been investigating the case and filing report. In my considered opinion, this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. On the petitioner’s own showing, Crime has already been registered. If the respondents are not investigating into the case and have failed to file the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate with appropriate application seeking directions to respondents 2 and 3 to complete the investigation and submit a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. It is not the case of the petitioner that he took recourse to this remedy. The Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee vs. Union of India[1] held as under: ‘Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence, which is cognizable one, there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India ((1996) 11 SCC 582) and reiterated in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra ((2004) 7 SCC 768) the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences Case, Gangadhar case, Hari Singh v. State of U.P. ((2006) 5 SCC 733), Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar ((2006) 4 SCC 359) and Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2006) 2 SCC 677), we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. I n Ramesh Kumari case the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted, which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case, Gangadhar case, Minu Kumari case and Hari Singh case. The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar ((2006) 12 SCC 229). The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institite of Medical Sciences case Gangadhar case, Hari Singh case and Minu Kumari case. The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police officials fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code.’ On the above premise, the Supreme Court gave the following directions: ‘(1) If any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted and observed. (2) It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials to adopt the remedy in terms of the aforesaid provisions.’ Since the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to him to avail the said remedy for appropriate directions to respondents 2 and 3. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.7552 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 18-03-2008 LUR [1] (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171