HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
W.P.No.24030 of 2010 and
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5521 of 2012
03.12.2012
W.P.No.24030 of 2010
Sunkara Srinivasulu and others
1. The Station House Officer, Owk Police Station, Kurnool District and others
Criminal.P.No.5521 of 2012
S.Srinivasulu and others
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi
Counsel for the Respondents: G.P.for Home, Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy and
Public Prosecutor
<Gist :
>Head Note:
?Cases referred:
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners 1 to 4 in the writ petition as well as in the criminal
petition are A.1 to A.4 in Cr.No.94 of 2010 of Owk Police Station of Kurnool
District.
They are accused of offence punishable under Section 353/34 IPC.
They filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking mandamus declaring action of the 1st respondent/Station House Officer,
Owk Police Station in registering F.I.R.No.94 of 2010 as arbitrary, illegal,
colourable exercise of power, vitiated by settled principles of legal position
and violative of fundamental and constitutional right guaranteed to the
petitioners under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and
consequently quashing the same.
After completing investigation, the police
filed charge sheet in that crime for the said offence against A.1 to A.4 in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalli, Kurnool District
and it was taken cognizance by the Magistrate for the above offence as
C.C.No.254 of 2010.
For quashing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.254 of 2010,
the criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Even though criminal petition is filed questioning procedure adopted
by the police during registration of the crime and investigation as well as
merits of the case,
the petitioners' counsel fairly submitted that in the
criminal petition that he is not seeking relief on merits/contents of the case,
as the accused are prepared to face trial in the trial Court on factual aspects
of the case subject to the result in this Court in these proceedings.
3. The only point on which the petitioners' counsel seeks relief
in
the writ petition as well as in the criminal petition is
that there was manipulation of F.I.R. by the Station House Officer while registering Cr.No.94 of 2010.
The 3rd respondent in the writ petition who is the 2nd respondent in
the criminal petition by name D.Kasaiah is the 1st informant/de facto
complainant in this crime.
It is contended by the petitioners' counsel that
originally Cr.No.94 of 2010 was registered against five persons as accused
namely A.1 to A.4 and Sunkara Venkateswarlu, son of Kondanna and
that
subsequently the said F.I.R. was replaced by another F.I.R. showing A.1 to A.4
alone as the accused persons and
that this procedure adopted by the Station
House Officer, who is named as the 2nd respondent/B.Srinivasulu Reddy, Sub-
Inspector of Police, Owk Police Station in the writ petition is unknown to
criminal law and contrary to prescribed criminal procedure and is also
unconstitutional.
The petitioners filed Photostat copies of both F.I.Rs in the
same Cr.No.94 of 2010.
On look at copies of two F.I.Rs in Cr.No.94 of 2010,
it
is evident that not only written first informations given by the de facto
complainant/D.Kasaiah are different as well as printed proforma of F.I.R.
attached to both the said reports are different.
Though scribe of both reports
and date of both reports are one and the same, the script as well as contents of
both F.I.Rs are different.
First F.I.R. is computerized copy of printed
portion, whereas printed proforma of the 2nd F.I.R. is filled up with hand on
conventionally printed proforma and not on computerized proforma.
In 1st
F.I.R., A.1 to A.4 and Sunkara Venkateswarlu are shown as accused persons,
whereas in 2nd F.I.R., A.1 to A.4 alone were written and shown as accused
persons, by deleting Sunkara Venkateswarlu from F.I.R.
It is only on the basis
of the the said replaced information, the Sub-Inspector of Police by name
B.Srinivasulu Reddy filed charge sheet into Court, even after interim stay was
granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.30764 of 2010.
Since the said interim stay
order in the writ petition was not communicated to the Magistrate and it was not
brought to notice of the Magistrate, the Magistrate cannot be found fault for
taking cognizance of the offence and assigning C.C.Nubmer to the charge sheet.
There is lot of manipulation by Sub-Inspector of Police in this matter right
from the stage of registration of crime till filing of charge sheet/final report
before the Magistrate. Such manipulations and manoeuvre cannot be allowed to be
perpetrated in a public office particularly in a police station which is an
important organ in the administration of criminal justice.
This is nothing but
subverting the criminal justice system and it cannot go scot-free particularly
when it has come to notice of this Court and when truth thereof is sufficiently
demonstrated by the petitioners/accused in the writ petition.
4. In the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit filed in
the writ petition,
the Sub-Inspector of Police by name B.Srinivasulu Reddy
admitted issuing two types of printed proforma of F.I.R., one on computerized
printed proforma and the other filled up with hand on conventionally printed
proforma, and also naming five accused persons in the 1st proforma and naming
only 4 accused persons in 2nd proforma.
He tried to throw blame on computer
operator of the police station for showing 5 accused persons in 1st proforma.
In case, the difference is only from printed portion of F.I.R., at best, the
explanation sought to be given by Sub-Inspector of Police may stand.
But,
unfortunately for the said Sub-Inspector, each of the two printed proformas in
Cr.No.94 of 2010 is attached by two different reports given by the 1st
informant/de facto complainant/D.Kasaiah.
There is absolutely no explanation
either in counter-affidavit or in additional counter-affidavit of B.Srinivasulu
Reddy on two different scripts with different contents of two different first
informations given by D.Kasaiah attached to each of the two printed proformas of
F.I.R. At this point, the mischief and manipulation of the said Sub-Inspector of
Police is caught redhanded.
5. When this Court directed the Official respondents to produce
general dairy of the police station, the Official respondents exhibited their
adocity by throwing into this Court Photostat copy of two sheets styled as
general dairy dated 23.06.2010, without any authentication.
Therefore, this
Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District to produce
original general dairy of the police station for the relevant period.
The
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District attended this Court in person and
produced original general dairy.
In the Photostat copy of general dairy of two
sheets thrown into Court by the Assistant Government Pleader, there is no entry
at 15:00 hours. But, in original general dairy produced by Superintendent of
Police in this Court, there is entry at 15:00 hrs on 23.06.2010.
The said entry
in general dairy does not reveal any explanation offered by Sub-Inspector of
Police in his counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit.
There is
attempt on the part of the said Sub-Inspector to manipulate entries in general
dairy also by preparing a copy which is stated to be a Photostat copy, prepared
by suppressing the relevant entry relating to this crime at 15:00 hrs.
There
are no entries in general dairy relating to receipt of two different first
informations of the de facto complainant and issuing two types of F.I.Rs in the
same Cr.No. 94 of 2010.
The Sub-Inspector of Police also gave false affidavits
in this Court on issuing two different F.I.Rs in the same Cr.No.94 of 2010.
Therefore, F.I.R. in Cr.No.94 of 2010 which is vitiated by illegality as well as
manipulation coupled with subverting criminal justice system, cannot be allowed
to stand and it is liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
6. When basic document in the crime namely F.I.R. is being quashed,
edifice built on such manipulated F.I.R. by way of final report/charge sheet
cannot have legs to stand; and consequently the criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.254 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,
Banaganapalli are also liable to be quashed in exercise of power under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
7. W.P.No.24030 of 2010: In the result, the writ petition is allowed making
rule nisi absolute and quashing F.I.R. in Cr.No.94 of 2010 of Owk Police
Station, Kurnool District.
The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District is
directed to keep the 2nd respondent namely B.Srinivasulu Reddy, the then Sub-
Inspector of Police, Owk Police Station under suspension forthwith and launch
necessary disciplinary proceedings under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 or/and any other relevant Rules
as well as criminal proceedings for the offences committed by him in the above
fact scenario, and report compliance of the same to this Court immediately.
The
Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate copy of this order to the
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, as the said Official is not a
proforma respondent in this writ petition.
8. Criminal Petition No.5521 of 2012: In the result, the criminal petition is
allowed quashing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.254 of 2010 on the file of
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalli.
_____________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt.3rd December, 2012
