IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16521 of 2008 Between: Anne Manjula @ Malleswari, W/o. Late Ravinder Reddy,Hindu, H.No.12-4-44, B.Y.Nagar, Siricilla, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Siricilla Police Station, Siricilla Karimnagar District. 2 The Superintendent Of Police, Karimnagar. 3 Gadapa Sumitra, W/o. Nagaraju, Siricilla(daughter of the peitioner) Karimnagar District. 4 Nagaraju, H/o. Gadapa Sumitra,(Son-in-law of the petitioner) R/o. Reddiwada, Siricilla, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the inaction of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in not taking cognizance of complaints made by petitioner and also in not registering the complaints against the 3rd respondent and their associates though all the oﬀences committed by the culprits are cognizable and converting the false complaint in FIR NO.97/2008 dated 26.03.2008 to be the real complaint and the real complaint to be the false complaint which is quite contrary to the Mandatory of Statutory provisions of Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as illegal, arbitrary, malaﬁde and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and hold that the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are duty bound to register and take cognizance and investigate into the oﬀences stated supra on the basis of complaints made by the petitioner to the Respondents No.2 on 16-6-2008 ignoring the false complaint said to have been made by her daughter i.e., 3rd respondent who is involved in the Crime and pass such other order or orders as deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16521 of 2008 Order: The writ petition is filed seeking a relief as under: “declaring the inaction of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in not taking cognizance of complaints made by petitioner and also in not registering the complaints against the 3rd respondent and their associates though all the oﬀences committed by the culprits are cognizable and converting the false complaint in FIR NO.97/2008 dated 26.03.2008 to be the real complaint and the real complaint to be the false complaint which is quite contrary to the Mandatory of Statutory provisions of Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as illegal, arbitrary, malaﬁde and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and hold that the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are duty bound to register and take cognizance and investigate into the oﬀences stated supra on the basis of complaints made by the petitioner to the Respondents No.2 on 16-6-2008 ignoring the false complaint said to have been made by her daughter i.e., 3rd respondent who is involved in the Crime and pass such other order or orders as deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case.” Eschewing the complex language in which the relief is couched, the fundamental grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the Respondents 1 and 2 have failed to deliver on the obligations enjoined on these respondents under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short ‘the Code’). The factual matrix as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a widow. The 3rd respondent is her daughter who married the 4th respondent contrary to her wishes, an inter caste marriage. The respondents 3 and 4 are not living with the petitioner. However, these respondents have been threatening the petitioner and demanding money. On 25.3.2008, the respondents 3 and 4 along with their associates attacked the petitioner; attempted to murder her; demanded ransom; ransacked the petitioner’s house and went away with a considerable amount of gold and money (the details of which are spelt out in paragraph-5 of the aﬃdavit). Consequent on the attack by Respondents 3 and 4 and their associates, the petitioner became unconscious due to the injuries and was admitted to the Government Civil Hospital, Sircilla, in an unconscious state. The petitioner’s mother went to the 1st respondent’s police station, with the information as to the incident that occurred on 25.3.2007, but the 1st respondent did not entertain the complaint of the petitioners’ mother while entertaining the complaint against the petitioner by the respondents 3 and 4. Thereupon, on 16.6.2008, the petitioner addressed a complaint to the second respondent as is facilitated by the provisions of Section 154 of the Code. There being no action either by the Respondents 1 and 3, complaining of abdication of statutory responsibilities by these respondents, the writ petition is ﬁled. The petitioner also complains that the Respondents 1 and 2 have visited the petitioner with hostile discrimination by entertaining the complaint of respondents 3 and 4 and while failing to entertain her complaint. In SAKARI VASU vs. STATE OF A.P. & OTHERS ( [1]), a substantially similar issue fell for consideration of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on an analysis of the provisions of Section 156(3), explicated the principle that there is an implied power in the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate to order registration of an oﬀence and/or to direct the in-charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the investigation, and, that in the context of the amplitude of such available power, the High Court should not encourage the practice of entertaining a grievance as to the non-registration of an oﬀence, but should relegate the aggrieved to the alternative statutory remedy, namely, under Section 154 and Section 36 of the Code, and if police do not act in terms of the mandate of Section 154, must relegate the aggrieved to approach the concerned Magistrate. The observations of the Supreme Court, to the extent relevant and material for the purpose of this case are as set out herein: “It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution.” Sri Linga Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner would alternately contend that this case presents the rarest of rare cases, and that this Court should entertain this writ petition for that reason. In the considered view of this Court, this case does not constitute the rarest of rare cases. Non-registration by the police of information even one clearly conveying facts as to commission of a cognizable oﬀence is not an unusual occurrence in the State. Such grievances are numerous and are more appropriately considered by the jurisdictional Magistrate, as pointed out in the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Home, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedies under the Code and in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 31st July, 2008 pnb [1] AIR 2008 SC 907