Telangana High Court
Kailash Amarnath vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 6 July, 2022
Author: Lalitha Kanneganti
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
W.P.No.27991 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 in supporting the illegal land grabbing activities of the unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 7 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.C.M.R.Velu and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner gave a complaint against respondent Nos.4 to 7, the police have failed to register the same and then, he has filed a private complaint and the Court has referred the same and thereafter, the respondent-police have registered a case in Cr.No.307 of 2022 on 08-04-2022 for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 506, 379 read with Section 34 IPC. He submits that thereafter, no action has been taken against respondent Nos.4 to 7 and they are still interfering with the petitioner's possession. He submits that unless the unofficial respondents are arrested, they will continue to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the subject property and hence, he has come up before this Court.
2 LK, J W.P.No.27991 of 2022
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that after the case was referred, the respondent- police have registered the complaint, examined six witnesses and also collected certified copies of documents. He submits that as early as possible, they will complete the investigation and file the charge sheet.
5. The report of petitioner is registered as Cr.No.307 of 2022 on the file of Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad District, for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 506, 379 read with Section 34 IPC. The punishment for the alleged offences is below 7 years imprisonment. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-police shall arrest the accused and according to him, not arresting the accused is inaction on the part of the official respondents. This Court is not able to appreciate the said contention as the police are bound to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. If the respondent-police have to arrest the accused, they should state reasons and whether to arrest the accused or not is a discretion vested with the police officer and this Court cannot direct the police to arrest the accused. Hence, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the action of the official respondents.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 3 LK, J W.P.No.27991 of 2022
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.
____________________________ SMT LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 6th July, 2022.
sj