Telangana High Court
Dr. Eunice L Chawngthu vs The State Of Telangana on 1 May, 2019
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.103 OF 2019
Date: 01.05.2019
Between:
Dr. Eunice L Chawngthu,
D/o Mr. C.Dothanga, Aged about 30 years,
A1 53 Mayuri Apartments, Mayuri Marg,
Begumpet, Hyderabad.
.....Petitioner
and
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary
For Home, TS Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
PNR,J
W.P.No.103 of 2019
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.103 OF 2019
ORDER:
Petitioner argued in person and learned Government Pleader made submissions on behalf of respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to direct the 2nd respondent to register FIR on the complaint filed by the petitioner on 02.11.2018 and to give his report within ten days. Petitioner further seeks direction to I Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad to take cognizance of the Contempt of Court committed by the accused in I.A.No.1190 of 2018 in O.S.No.573 of 2018 pending in the Court of I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad, within three days from the pronouncement of its order.
3. According to petitioner, there was threat to her life. She was criminally intimidated by the alleged flat owner in Flat No.53, Black-A1, Mayuri Apartments, Mayuri Marg, Begumpet, Hyderabad along with a female goonda wearing a black salwar suit on the morning of 31.10.2018 at about 8.30 a.m. She immediately dialed 100 for assistance. Two Police personnel came to the suit schedule property, but left soon after. She further contended that on the same day, flat owner broke open the flat lock, entered into the flat without her permission, robbed 2.00 lakhs in cash, removed her movables and threw them violently on the common corridor outside the main gate, resulting in permanent damage to many of her belongings. She further contended that on 01.11.2018, the very same person disconnected her electricity connection in collusion with his supporters, particularly Watchmen/Chowkidars. She would submit that crime ought to PNR,J W.P.No.103 of 2019 3 have been registered and investigated into the matter. She further submitted that she filed O.S.No.573 of 2018 in the Court of I Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad praying to grant decree of permanent injunction against the landlord. She also filed I.A.No.1190 of 2018 seeking temporary injunction. The learned Judge granted status quo order on 30.10.2018. In disobedience of the said orders, the above criminal acts took place on 31.10.2018. She further contended that even though disobedience was reported to the learned I Junior Civil Judge, he has not taken any action against offenders. Her application filed for advancement of petition is not taken up. According to petitioner, as serious violation of the Court order was reported, contempt proceedings ought to have been initiated by the learned Judge. She therefore prays to issue direction to the learned Judge to initiate contempt proceedings. She further contended that for no reason, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, interfered in the civil matter, and refused to obey the orders of the competent court and to refuse to register the crime reported by her. She further submitted that on 05.11.2018, as regular Judicial Officer was on leave, she filed petition before the In-charge Court, X Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Instead of taking the matter, X Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate posted the matter before the regular Court and the regular Court has not taken up the matter on 08.11.2018 and 09.11.2018 and in those compelling circumstances, Writ Petition is filed, having no alternative. She further submitted that though subsequently crime is registered, the crime is not registered under the relevant provisions of law including the provisions of SC/ST Act. Though she has recorded the proceedings PNR,J W.P.No.103 of 2019 4 in video and though the same was informed to the Police, so far Police have not collected video footage from her. She further submitted that even in this case also, water down provisions were only included in the crime reported subsequently.
4. In the counter-affidavit, deposed by Sri Kalmeshwar Shingenavar, the allegations of the petitioner are denied. Learned Government Pleader submitted that on receipt of complaint made by the petitioner, GD entry was made and the Sub-Inspector of Police was deputed for enquiry. The enquiry reveals that Ms Salagna Datta took the flat No.A1-53 on rent from one Smt. Satya Laxmi and entered into an agreement, for her sister and herself. Her sister did not join. She gave an advertisement that she has space for rent for one more person to join with her, and to enter into rental agreement, and in terms thereof, petitioner joined in the premises and they both started living together without intimation to the owner of the property. As petitioner started creating nuisance and indulging in quarrelling with elderly persons, the original tenant asked the petitioner to vacate the flat and that she too also vacating the flat. Petitioner agreed to vacate and left the flat. Subsequently, the original tenant handed over the possession and gave keys to the owner of the flat, and the owner of the flat taken possession of the flat. It is stated that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 02.11.2018 in Begumpet Police Station, Crime No.373 of 2018 was registered under Sections 448, 427, 379 and 506 of IPC.
5. In response to the averments in the counter-affidavit, petitioner sought to contend that false allegations are made in the counter-affidavit regarding eviction and since the issue is pending PNR,J W.P.No.103 of 2019 5 in the competent Court, it is no more open to the Police to assert in the said manner prejudicing her claim in the pending suit.
6. As noted above, petitioner sought two prayers. First prayer relates to registration of the crime under appropriate section of law. According to the respondents, on the allegations of trespass, causing damage, theft of property and criminal intimidation, relevant provisions of IPC were included and, therefore, it cannot be said that relevant provisions of IPC are not included in the crime. From the complaint lodged by the petitioner, it is seen that petitioner did not allege of attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act. It is also appropriate to note that petitioner filed petition in the Court of XI ACMM, Secunderabad, praying to direct the respondents to register FIR expeditiously under relevant sections of law based on her complaint dated 28.10.2018 and 02.11.2018 and to grant Police protection. The status of the said petition is not informed to the Court. Be that as it may, crime is already registered and according to the Police, investigation is in progress. It cannot be said that petitioner is remediless if Police do not conduct investigation properly and file its final report. After final report is filed, if petitioner is not satisfied, it is always open to petitioner to object to the nature of investigation conducted and content of final report that may be filed by the respondent.
7. On elaborate consideration of the issue and having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court in W.P.No.38397 of 2018 and batch, dated 8.3.2019 held that petitioners have to avail statutorily engrafted remedies available to them on issue of non-registration of crime and cannot directly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
PNR,J W.P.No.103 of 2019 6
8. Thus, it is left open to petitioner to work out her remedies if there is delay in investigation and/or the final report is not to her satisfaction.
9. It is also appropriate to note that petitioner claimed to be a tenant. Alleging illegal interference in her occupation of the subject flat, petitioner filed O.S.No.573 of 2018 pending in the Court of I Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, and the learned Judge granted status quo order. What is relied by the petitioner is an ex parte injunction order granted to her. In the Writ Petition, petitioner also seeks prayer to direct the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to initiate contempt proceedings. Thus, what is sought is direction to learned Judge to deal with the matter in a particular manner.
10. In the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no direction can be issued to the trial Court to act in a particular manner while the trial Court is seized of the matter. It would be amounting to interference in judicial matters. If petitioner is aggrieved by any of the decisions of the trial Court or delay in disposal of any application filed by her, it is always open to her to seek legal remedy under C.P.C., or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. At this stage, it is appropriate to note law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath1. Paragraphs-25 to 27 reads as under:
"25. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional 1 (2015) 5 SCC 423 PNR,J W.P.No.103 of 2019 7 scheme. There is no parallel system of King's Court in India and of all the other courts having limited jurisdiction subject to the supervision of the King's Court. Courts are set up under the Constitution or the laws. All the courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227.
Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all the High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for the High Courts to issue writs to the subordinate courts. Control of working of the subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article
227. Orders of the civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by the statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. The expression "inferior court" is not referable to the judicial courts, as rightly observed in the referring order [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] in paras 26 and 27 quoted above.
26. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] also observed in para 25 of its judgment that distinction between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost obliterated. In para 24 of the said judgment distinction in the two articles has been noted. In view thereof, observation that scope of Articles 226 and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly observed [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] by the referring Bench in para 32 quoted above. We make it clear that though despite the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, it has been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the said jurisdiction has been expanded. Scope of Article 227 has been explained in several decisions including Waryam Singh v. Amarnath [AIR 1954 SC 215 : 1954 SCR 565] , Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir [(2002) 1 SCC 319] , Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 338] and Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal [(2013) 9 SCC 374 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 345] . In Shalini Shyam Shetty [(2010) 8 SCC 329 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 338] this Court observed: (SCC p. 352, paras 64-67) "64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a PNR,J W.P.No.103 of 2019 8 decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions.
65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.
66. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law.
67. As a result of frequent interference by the Hon'ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon'ble High Court will follow the time- honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly." (emphasis supplied)
27. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article
226. We are also in agreement with the view [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616] of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a PNR,J W.P.No.103 of 2019 9 private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from Article 226."
12. Thus, Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits, and petitioner is entitled to work out remedies as available in law. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 01.05.2019 kkm PNR,J W.P.No.103 of 2019 10 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.103 OF 2019 Date: 01.05.2019 kkm