This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the police in registering a F.I.R. on the report given by the petitioner on 16.11.2013, as illegal and arbitrary.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

The petitioner averred that he joined as a shareholder in Delta Cabs Company, by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- vide State Bank of India cheque No.247491 towards his share capital, that respondents 1 and 2 are the partners of the said Delta Cabs Company and they have entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 06.05.2012. As respondents 1 and 2 allegedly absconded with the company funds and are not paying interest on the petitioner’s capital amount or profit in the business, the petitioner has lodged a report on 11.11.2013 and also on 16.11.2013 against respondents 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 406 and 409 I.P.C. As F.I.R. has not been registered even after expiry of more than one month, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

This Court has ordered notice to the official respondents through the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The case underwent two adjournments. Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.6 has registered the F.I.R. on 13.12.2013 i.e., after the case was last adjourned on 11.12.2013.

To the Court’s query made during the hearing on 18.12.2013, on the inordinate delay in registering the F.I.R., the learned Assistant Government Pleader, based on the written instructions, submitted that the reason for the delay in respondent No.6 registering the F.I.R. is that he has conducted preliminary enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner in his report. Indeed, this procedure adopted by respondent No.6 is not only contrary to the procedure laid down under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) and also by a catena of judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. The case was therefore adjourned for filing counter-affidavit by respondent No.6.

Respondent No.6 has accordingly filed a counter affidavit on 19.12.2013 wherein he has inter alia stated as under:

“It is respectfully submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner herein has sent a complaint dated 16.11.2013 to the Station House Officer, Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad through post stating that Mr. Sajid Hussain and Mr. Ahmed Hussain who are the partners of DELTA CABS Pvt. Ltd., are absconding with company funds and not paying the interest of the capital amount and profit of the business as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 2.6.2012.

It is respectfully submitted that although sincere efforts were being made to trace out the original complaint dated 16.11.2013 sent by the petitioner herein by post, the same could not be traced and hence this respondent did not initiate any action upon it immediately, for which I sincerely tender my unconditional apology to this Hon’ble Court.”

The petitioner filed rejoinder wherein he has pleaded that he has sent the report to respondent No.6 on 11.11.2013 and 16.11.2013 by Speed Post and that after seeing the counter affidavit, the petitioner’s counsel submitted a representation to the Chief Post Master, General Post Office, Hyderabad, on 19.12.2013 for furnishing delivery particulars of the Speed Post and that the information furnished by the Chief Post Master, General Post Office, Hyderabad, showed that the postal cover was delivered to the address of respondent No.6 on 12.11.2013. The petitioner filed a copy of the said communication issued by the office of the Chief Post Master, General Post Office, Hyderabad on 21.12.2013. From the abovementioned letter addressed by the Chief Post Master, it is established beyond any cavil of doubt that Narayanaguda Police Station, of which respondent No.6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, has