Telangana High Court
A. Anjaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 16 December, 2020
Author: P Naveen Rao
Bench: P. Naveen Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 16928 of 2020
Date : 16.12.2020
Between:
A.Anjaiah S/o Nagaiah Aged 55 Years Occ Advocate
R/o 13-278/3 Bhagyanagar Colony Shadnagar R R
District509216
Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana
Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Secretariat Hyderabad
and others
Respondents
The Court made the following:
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 16928 of 2020
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for 5th respondent.
2. On 13.3.2018 petitioner filed a complaint in Shadnagar police station in the capacity of Secretary of Shalivahana Educational Society, alleging committing of crime which is cognizable. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 124 of 2018 was registered on 13.3.2018 under Sections 420, 417, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that police are not investigating into the crime even after two years and said action of the police amounts to abdication of duties and responsibilities as police officers.
4. 5th respondent filed counter affidavit opposing various averments of the petitioner and stand of the petitioner. Learned counsel for 5th respondent raised preliminary objection on maintainability of the writ petition by contending that petitioner ceased to be the Secretary of the society, therefore, he cannot represent the society. In support of said contention, reliance is placed on order passed by First Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar in SROP No. 1 of 2009 declaring the election of the petitioner as invalid. Learned counsel for 5th respondent further contends that petitioner has not disclosed the true and correct facts and has suppressed the factum that he ceased to be Secretary of the Society.
5. In response to the said objection, learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that petitioner has not stated himself as representing society or as Secretary of the Society; whatever is stated in various paragraphs is referable to his position as Secretary of the Society 3 prior to order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar in SROP No. 1 of 2009. He further submits that his signatures were forged therefore declaration given by the Tribunal is not valid and binding on him.
6. Court cannot express any opinion on the issue whether there was forgery of petitioner's signatures and if petitioner has any grievance on that aspect, he has to work out remedies available to him under law. The fact remains that petitioner was claimed to have been elected as Secretary in the elections conducted in the year 2005. Challenging the elections conducted in the year 2005 and to declare the election of the petitioner and others as office bearers of the society, as illegal and void, SROP No. 1 of 2009 was filed on the file of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar. Petitioner herein is arrayed as first respondent. The Court rendered decision setting aside the declaration of results and election of new office bearers dated 30.6.2005 and 23.12.2005 as illegal and void.
7. Consequent to the decision rendered by the Tribunal, petitioner ceased to be the Secretary until the said decision is reversed or fresh elections are held electing the petitioner. Thus, by the time the writ petition was instituted, petitioner ceased to be the Secretary of the Society. As noticed in the earlier paragraphs, complaint was lodged by the petitioner not in his individual capacity but as Secretary of the Society. Thus, after the decision by the Tribunal declaring his election as invalid, the question of petitioner seeking to represent the Society and to seek declaration from this Court on action of the respondent police in not concluding the investigation is no more valid.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that he did not declare himself as Secretary of the Society in the affidavit, therefore 4 there was no mis-representation. However, on going through various paragraphs of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is seen that petitioner is clearly asserting as representing the Society as Secretary. Same can be seen from averments in paragraph 3, where he states "....I am Secretary of Shalivahana Education Society, Shad Nagar...." ; in paragraph 4, he states "....our society was registered under Societies Act....." ; in paragraph 5, he states ".... I was elected as Secretary on 30.6.2005...".
9. Nowhere in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition petitioner has referred to the decision rendered by the Tribunal in SROP No.1 of 2019 declaring his election as invalid, though, there is reference to filing of SROP 1 of 2019 in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, and that his election as Secretary was set aside. The fact that petitioner instituted the writ petition praying to direct the respondent police to complete the investigation itself would show that he continues to claim as Secretary of the Society. Otherwise, petitioner cannot file the writ petition in individual capacity seeking to represent the cause of society and seek direction to investigate into the crime reported by him in the capacity as Secretary of the society. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for 5th respondent, petitioner has suppressed the factum of his status as it stands now vis-à-vis the Society.
10. Writ remedy is equitable remedy and discretionary remedy. First thing Court expects from a petitioner instituting the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to disclose all the facts necessary and prosecute his grievance bonafidely. Suppression in any form cannot be appreciated. Thus, writ petition fails on solitary ground of petitioner not coming to this Court with clean hands. 5
11. Be that as it may, as per the averments of the fourth respondent in his counter affidavit, after completing the investigation, police have filed final report on 19.11.2020 in the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate stating that the dispute is civil in nature and that investigation is now completed and they are awaiting further orders from the learned Magistrate. If the society is aggrieved by the final report submitted by the police stating that complaint lodged by the society is one of civil in nature, the society has to workout its remedies as available in law notwithstanding dismissal of this writ petition. Writ Petition accordingly dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.
__________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 16-12-2020 TVK 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 16928 of 2020 Date : 16.12.2020 7