WP/23828/2004 of Asghar Ali, Vs The Commissioner of Police, on 27 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 23828 of 2004

Between:

Asghar Ali, S/o. Late Mushtafa Ali, R/o. H.No. 9-1-7, Hasham Nagar, langerhouse, Hyderabad-8.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

2 The Dy. Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad.

3 The Circle Inspector of Police, langer Hosue, Hyderabad.

4 The Sub-Inspector of Police, langerhouse Police Station, Hyderabad.

5 Shabbir Ali, S/o. Zakier Ali,

H.No. 9-1-11, Hasam Nagar, Langerhouse, Hyderabad.

6 Riaz S/o.

H.No. 9-1-11, Hasam Nagar, Langerhouse, Hyderabad.

7 Ahmed,

H.No. 9-1-11, Hasam Nagar, Langerhouse, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directiondeclaring the inaction of the 3rd and 4th respondents in not investigating in tothe complaint submitted by the petitioner dt. 2.12.2004 as arbitrary, illegal,unconstitutional and against the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code andconsequently direct the 3rd and 4th respondent to investigate in the complaintsubmitted by the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as thisHonourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.NAGARJUNA REDDY

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioner states that he submitted a complaint on 02.12.2004 before theS.H.O., P.S. Langerhouse alleging that respondents 5 to 7 are deliberately andmischievously parking their auto rickshaws in front of his house and when heobjected for the same, they threatened that they would burn the vehicles andthrow the blame on him. His grievance is that respondents 3 and 4 have nottaken any action so far on the complaint made by him and the nuisance iscontinuing. He seeks appropriate directions to respondents 3 and 4 in thisregard.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forHome.

The petitioner submitted a complaint against respondents 5 to 7 alleging certaincriminal acts against them. Even if it is true that respondents 3 and 4 have nottaken any action on the complaint of the petitioner, it is not as if he is withoutany remedy. Taking cognizance of the offences on the report submitted by thepolice is one of the methods under Section 190 Cr.P.C. The aggrieved personcan submit a complaint directly before the Magistrate concerned, under Section200 Cr.P.C. Issuing any direction to the police to register a case is not a knownpractice in law. It is only when there is a clear dereliction of duties on the partof the police that such a course can be resorted to.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to thepetitioner to avail the remedy under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the appropriateCourt. There shall be no order as to costs.

------------------------

27.12.2004

ksld

To

1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

2 The Dy. Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad.

3 The Circle Inspector of Police, langer Hosue, Hyderabad.

4 The Sub-Inspector of Police, langerhouse Police Station, Hyderabad.

5 Two CCs.to the G.P. for Home, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT).

6 Two CD copies.