IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5297 of 2008 Between: Gummadidala Leela Madhuri W/o. Srinivasa Rao R/o. H.No. 1-3-50, Four Pillar Centre, Vidyadarapuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3 Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. 4 Station House Officer, Vijayawada City (Law and Order) I Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.C.S.P.GHANTA for MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA 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 the respondents in not undertaking investigation and filing charge sheet in Crime Nos.481 and 527 of 2007 on the file of respondent No.4 as illegal, irregular and arbitrary. Heard Sri R.C.S.P.Ghanta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The averments contained in the affidavit of the petitioner show that there are matrimonial disputes between her and her in-laws. As respondent No.4 did not register crime on the complaint given by her, she filed a private complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and the Jurisdictional Magistrate viz., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, referred the complaint to respondent No.4 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and thereupon, respondent No.4 registered the case as Crime No.527 of 2007 on 18-09-2007 for offences under Sections 452, 323, 352, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. The grievance of the petitioner is that though a crime is registered, so far no investigation has been taken up by respondent No.4. In my considered view, this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. The accused in the said case are not made parties to this Writ Petition. Further more, on the petitioner’s own showing, on the complaint being forwarded by the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., respondent No.4 already registered a crime. If respondent No.4 has not completed the investigation, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate with appropriate application seeking directions to respondent No.4 to complete the investigation and submit a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the petitioner that she 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 her to avail the said remedy. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.6875 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 13-03-2008 LUR [1] (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171