Hyderabad: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has cautioned the executive of the state that the findings rendered by the Constitutional courts, while disposing cases involving issues of general public importance, cannot be treated as mere rituals.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy pointed out that of late a trend was clearly noticeable that the precedential value of the courts’ verdicts rendered in the field of public law were being treated as confined to the cases in particular in which they were given.
The judge said that the higher administrative echelons needed to show far greater degrees of sensitivity to the views of the Constitutional courts to prevent repetition of illegalities. They would also do well to realise that their duty did not end with issuing executive instructions or administrative circulars, but extended to ensuring their implementation in letter and in spirit.
The judge was disposing a petition filed by A.V. Santosh Kumar challenging the inaction of the Narayanaguda police of the city in not registering a compliant.
The petitioner told the court that they had lodged a complaint on November 11, 2013 against the partners of Delta Cabs Pvt. Ltd after they had failed to pay interest on the petitioner’s capital amount or profit in the business.
He also said that he had sent a complaint through post with due acknowledgement on November 16, 2013, and despite that, the police had failed to register the crime.
The judge sought an explanation from the investigation officer who informed the court that he had conducted a preliminary enquiry into the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner in his report.
The judge then pointed out that the procedure adopted by the investigation officer was contrary to the procedure laid down under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Justice Reddy recalled the recent direction in which the DGP, in a circular, had directed stern measures to be taken against Station House Officers (SHOs) for not registering FIRs wherein the complaints disclosed commission of cognizable offences.
The judge then called for the records and after perusing the same, noticed that there was ample evidence to prove that the police had received the complaint on November 16, but had registered the case only on December 12, 2013.
The judge also noticed that the case had been registered after the petitioner had moved the High Court. The judge said, “It is evident that he is trying to cover up his conduct of keeping the report pending without registering the crime though its contents disclosed commission of cognizable offence.”
As the investigation officer had failed in registering the case, the judge imposed '500 fine per day from November 11 to December 12 and directed him to pay the same from his personal funds.
