JUDGMENT

P.Naveen Rao, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

2. This writ petition is filed alleging that even though cognizable crime was reported by the petitioners to the Station House Officer, S.R.Nagar Police Station, on 07.09.2020, so far crime is not registered.

3. If the petitioners have grievance against non-registration of crime, they have an effective and efficacious remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, petitioners have to avail the remedy available in law, before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The very issue was considered by this Court in W.P.No.38397 of 2018 and batch in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and Others, (2019) 3 ALT 139 . On consideration of the precedent decisions on the subject and the scope of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more particularly, Sections 156, 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C., this Court held as under:

"34. Having regard to law propounded by Supreme Court, it is no more open for any one to contend that unless a report is filed aggrieved person is without remedy. It is also no more open to contend that once crime is registered accused must be arrested and charge sheet/final report must be filed as a matter of course. Further, delay in completing the investigation can be for various reasons. Police may be waiting for forensic report/Medical report/the accused is absconding/having regard to complex nature of crime reported more time is consumed to collect required data/information to assess the nature of crime, number of documents and/or witnesses are more. While determining delay, it is necessary to consider each case on its facts having regard to attending circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses etc [Mahender Lal Das v. State of Bihar Appeal (Civil) No. 1038 of 2001 dated 12.10.2001]. The jurisdictional Magistrate shall have all material facts in issue at his command to assess the issue and shall be competent to go into all aspects when matters are brought before him and to take appropriate decision. It is also within the competence of superior officers to assess the conduct of Station House Officer and to take remedial action whenever there is deliberate and unexplained delay in investigation and filing of final report."

5. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Subramaniam and another v. S.Janaki and another,2020 SCConlineSC 341 . In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the opinion expressed in Sakiri Vasu . In Sakiri Vasu the Supreme Court held as under:

"17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation."

18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution."

6. Following the above decisions, this writ petition is dismissed granting libe