Telangana High Court
Afroz Fatima vs The State Of Telartgana And 6 Others on 20 August, 2020
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No.12905 of 2020
ORDER:
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 2nd respondent-Station House officer, Rein Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad, in not registering the FIR for the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein under cognizable offences and favouring the unofficial respondents, as being arbitrary, illegal, abuse of procedure established by law, mala fide, done with an intention to support the 4th respondent and his family members and closed the complaint lodged by the petitioner as a petty case, with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent authority to register the FIR on the complaint lodged by the petitioner and to investigate into the matter and to arrest and take appropriate action against the unofficial respondents to meet the ends of justice.
2. The above case is taken up for hearing today i.e., 20.08.2020, through Video Conferencing.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 3.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the writ averments would submit that the petitioner is in receipt of Short Message Service (SMS) alert on 09.07.2020 informing the petitioner that the complaint made by the petitioner has been disposed of under petty case booked. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that while the contents of the 2 complaint made by the petitioner disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the 2nd respondent authority in order to favour the 4th respondent has initially registered a petty case and closed the same, as noted in the above said SMS received by the petitioner, which it is claimed is not in accordance with law and the procedure contemplated under Criminal Procedure Code.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has forwarded to this Court by e-mail, written instructions under the signature of 2nd respondent authority. By the said written instructions, while denying the writ averments, it is stated that upon receipt of a petition from the petitioner, the respondent authority made a GD entry, vide No.HYD/RBZR_HYD/ 090620/00409, dated 09.06.2020 and endorsed the said complaint to one Sri Syed Hafeez, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Rein Bazar for enquiry and necessary action. It is also stated that the Enquiry Officer sought to send the petitioner to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for getting treatment, but the petitioner refused stating that she was having urgent work.
6. By the aforesaid written statement, it is stated that the Enquiry Officer visited the scene of offence, but no one came forward to reveal the facts. It is also stated that on 11.06.2020 the Enquiry Officer called the petitioner to P.S. Rein Bazar and on her request, she was sent to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment where the duty doctor treated as Out Patient, vide MLC No.15545, dated 11.06.2020. It is also stated that based on her petition, the respondent authority booked a petty case, vide No.HYD2347PC2010193/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 70 (B) of the City Police Act and Section 323 IPC against the 4th respondent in the present case. It is further stated that the 3 above case registered is still under investigation and based on the total outcome of the enquiry, appropriate action will be taken against the concerned respondents in the above case.
7. Having regard to the submissions made as above, since by the said written instructions it is stated that the above case registered based on the complaint made by the petitioner on 09.06.2020 is under investigation, the apprehension of the petitioner basing on the SMS received stating that the complaint has been disposed of as petty case booked, appears to be a mere apprehension entertained due to mis understanding of the above communication on the part of the petitioner. By the aforesaid SMS sent to the petitioner, the petitioner was informed of the action taken on her complaint lodged vide no. HYD/RBZR_HYD/ 090620/00409, being disposed as "Petty Case Booked". It is to be seen that upon taking note of the complaint and registering a petty case, a new number has been assigned to the said case bearing No. HYD2347PC2010193/2020. By the above said SMS petitioner was only sought to be informed by the respondent authorities of the action taken on her complaint, stating that the complaint vide no. HYD/RBZR_HYD/ 090620/00409 stands disposed as "Petty Case Booked" but not as "Petty Case Closed", as sought to be construed by the petitioner. Since, the authorities took action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner by registering a petty case, would only mean the disposal of the complaint lodged and not the case registered thereupon, as sought to be understood by the petitioner. Since, it is categorically stated on behalf of the respondent authorities that the petty case booked is under investigation, it is needless to state that the respondent police 4 authorities shall conduct investigation in the matter in accordance with law for taking necessary action in the case registered.
Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 20.08.2020 Isn