Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 510
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
A. Venkata Narasu Babu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7346 of 2020
Decided On : 08-09-2020
S.S. Bhatt, Advocate
The existence of an alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - POLICE INACTION - REGISTRATION OF FIR - COGNIZABLE OFFENCE - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 154(3) AND 156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to register a crime/FIR against the respondents for illegal mining and transportation of minerals from the petitioner's land in violation of the Supreme Court order dated 08.05.2017. The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to take action despite receiving a complaint and that their inaction violated the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court noted that Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a procedure for filing a complaint with the Superintendent of Police if the officer in charge of a police station refuses to register an FIR. Additionally, Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation into a cognizable offense upon receiving information under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 2. Whether the police are obligated to register an FIR when a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the existence of an alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is discretionary and that it should not be used to bypass the statutory remedies provided by law. 2. The court held that the police are obligated to register an FIR when a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) AIR SC 1515, which held that the police have a legal obligation to register an FIR when a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court also held that the police are obligated to register an FIR when a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offense.
JUDGMENT
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
"To issue Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in not registering any Crime/FIR against the Respondents Nos.10 to 13 and also declaring the action of the Respondents Nos.7 to 9 in not taking any legal action against the Respondents Nos.10 to 13 regarding the trespass illegal mining of mineral and transportation of the same from the land in Sy.No.275 of Gondipalle Village, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District and violating the order of the Supreme Court order dated 08.05.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 to register a Crime/FIR against the Respondent Nos.10 to 13 and also direct the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 to take action as per law against the Respondent Nos. 10 to 13 from doing illegal mining activity and transportation violating the order of the Supreme Court and also direct the police department/R-3 to R-6 to take undertakings from the Respondent Nos.10 and 13 from not interfering into the mining operations that would be conducted by the petitioners in Sy.No.275 of Gondipalle Village, Vemula Mandal Kadapa District in an extent of Ac.705-43 acres and direct the Respondent No.12 to follow the order of the Supreme Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, Respondent No.12 herein has filed suit O.S.No.128 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, for grant of injunction restraining Defendant No.6/Akumalla Rajagopal his men, agents, etc., claiming right through him from entering into the plaint schedule mine in any capacity and thereby not to interfere with the smooth management of the mine in any manner. Respondent No.12 and others also filed an application I.A.No.365 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C for grant of interim injunction restraining Akula Rajagopal/Respondent No.6 therein and his men, obtained interim order on 07.04.2016. The same was assailed in CMA Nos.407 and 415 of 2016 and later preferred CRP No.2319 of 2016 on the file of this Court, questioning the order in I.A.No.365 of 2016 in O.S.No.128 of 2014 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. This Court vide common order in CRP No.2319 of 2016 and CMA Nos.407 and 415 of 2016 set-aside the interim injunction granted by the civil court in I.A.No.365 of 2016 dated 07.04.2016. The unsuccessful plaintiff has approached the Apex Court in S.L.P (C) Nos.34404-34406/2016, where the Apex Court by order dated 08.05.2017 passed an order as follows:
"Issue notice.
The petitioner, Annaiahvari Anjaneyulu @ Anja, and Respondent No.3, Annaiahvari Shyam Pawan, and Respondent No.7, Annaiahvari Venkata Narasu @ Babu are appointed as joint receivers. They shall file fortnightly accounts before the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, who, in turn, shall send it to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court."
3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued demand notice for payment of dead rent of a sum of Rs.3,24,96,241/- on 23.03.2018 in ten instalments and Respondent No.2 did not cooperate with these petitioners to operate the mine. The petitioners addressed a letter dated 26.04.2018 to Director of Mines and Geology/Respondent No.7 and Joint Director of mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, narrating the facts of the case, expressing their readiness to cooperate with Respondent No.12 to operate the mine. The co-owners of petitioners submitted another letter dated 31.07.2018 to the Government to permit the petitioners to pay the dues in 24 equal instalments, but the Government granted only 20 equal instalments for payment of the dead rent of Rs.3,24,96,241/-.
4. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners got issued legal notice dated 27.11.2018 to Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 through their Advocate, dem
