K.V.S.N.Murthy vs. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL Nos.786 & 787 OF 2012

Dt: 29-06-2012.

Between:

K.V.S.N.Murthy

.. APPELLANT

AND

The Director General of Police, Hyderabad and others.

.. RESPONDENTS

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL NOs.786 & 787 OF 2012

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

These two appeals are directed against the common order dated 5.6.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 28542 of 2011 and 28556 of 2011.

In Writ Petition No. 28542 of 2011, the writ petitioner-appellant was seeking for transfer of Crime No. 80 of 2009 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad dated 21.1.2009 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), Economic Offences Wing, Hyderabad and to file a report before the Court and further to direct respondent-State to pay Rs.2.00 lakhs towards costs of the litigation. The second writ petition, being, Writ Petition No. 28556 of 2011 was filed by the writ petitioner-appellant seeking a direction to the first respondent to file a report in the matter.

The foundation of the said writ petitions, as has been stated by the appellant in the writ petitions is that M/s. Twin Cities Infotech Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is a bogus company and efforts made out by the appellant to trace out the company remained futile. The appellant lodged a complaint with the third respondent, who registered a case in Crime No. 80 of 2009. It is the further case of the appellant that for some extraneous considerations, the Investigating Officer threatened that the case would be closed. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, Hyderabad and also the first respondent by the appellant

vide his letter dated 11.3.2009. It has been further stated that the case has not been properly investigated, as a result whereof, the appellant approached the writ Court to entrust the said case to C.B.I. Incidentally, the said writ petition, being W.P. No.15414 of 2009, was dismissed by the Court by order dated 15.9.2009.

It further appears from the facts, as has been noted by the Hon'ble Single Judge, that the case in Crime No. 80 of 2009 was closed by the Investigating Officer. The appellant, being aggrieved by the steps taken by the Investigating Officer, made a complaint dated 8.2.2011 to the Director General of Police. Since no reply was received by the appellant, the appellant had filed the second writ petition, being W.P. No. 28556 of 2011 for filing an action taken report by the first respondent before the Court. The respondents contested the said writ petition by filing counter affidavits denying the averments made in the writ petitions and contended that no case is pending as on that date and therefore, the question of entrusting the case to an investigating agency does not arise, after filing of the final report by the police. It was further contended that the appellant otherwise has no cause of action on the date of filing of the writ petitions. On the other hand, it has been stated by the appellant that police have not collected any material documents in respect of the said bogus company nor taken any steps in the matter, as has been stated by him, for extraneous considerations.

It appears to us that the factual matrix of the case is not in dispute and further more, the case was registered for the offences committed as alleged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on 21.1.2009. It is also a fact that none has disputed the investigation conducted by the police and the final report filed on 17.2.2011. The appellant is aggrieved by the closure of the case in question and contended before us that the matter should have been referred to the higher officials so that the matter can be taken up by them for further investigation in respect of the case so lodged by him. But, as it appears to us that the Hon'ble Single Judge following the Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has specifically stated that the re-investigation is not permitted under the

Cr.P.C. and the question of exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise. Further, it has been held that the question of giving direction to the Director General of Police does not arise concerning the facts of the case and further the appellant has a right to take necessary steps before the appropriate forum under the appropriate law.

Per contra, it has been urged on behalf of the State Authorities before us, while drawing our attention to paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and finally paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the decision of the Supreme Court in SAKIRI

<span id="page-3-0"></span>VASU vs. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS [1] and after relying upon the said paragraphs, the learned counsel submitted that if it is necessary for the appellant to take steps, he has a right to take steps under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. as has been specifically stated in the said decision.

We have further noted that in the said decision, the Supreme Court has stated that if a person has a grievance that his F.I.R. has not been registered by the police, his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also noted in the said decision that he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Court then questioned why the writ petitions or petitions under 482 Cr.P.C. be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies.

After noting the said decision, in our opinion, our conscience is also asking us to raise such question at this stage. Incidentally it appears to us that although an alternative remedy is an absolute bar to a writ petitioner, but it is equally settled that if there is an alternative remedy, the High Court ordinarily should not interfere. Such proposition has already been laid down in these type of matters.

Our attention was also drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant that representations were also filed according to him, but no steps have been taken thereon. Even then, in our opinion, the Writ Court should not interfere in the matter, as has been specifically stated by the Supreme Court and the appellant-writ petitioner is amply protected under the provisions of law.

We, therefore, feel it would be better for the appellant-writ petitioner to take recourse to all such measures as he is entitled to under the provisions of law. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, we do not find that there is any illegality in respect of the order so passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

The writ appeals are devoid of merits and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

(C. PRAVEEN KUMAR,J )

Dt: 29-06-2012.

pnb

<span id="page-4-0"></span>[1] AIR 2008 SC 907