Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 196 (AP)

T. Shyam Sunder v. N. Jayanth Kumar

2006-02-15

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vinod Kumar deshpande, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri K. Dhanunjay, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 of the criminal Procedure Code to quash the F. I. R. in Crime No. 51 of 2002, dated 28-3-2002 of p. S. , Adilabad II Town. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is doing business in purchase and selling of shares and he is the Managing Director of Eshwara Securities Limited, Hanmakonda and respondent No. 1 is a Medical practitioner running a Nursing Home under the name and style of "anil Nursing Home" at Mulkanoor Village of Bhimdevarapally mandal of Karimnagar District. The petitioner had a transaction of purchase and sale of shares in the name of respondent no. 1 and his family members under his authorization and at that time respondent no. 1 herein raised some disputes with regard to the accounts relating to the said transaction. It is also stated that respondent no. 1 is a rich and highly influential person and as a part of his evil design to extract more money from the petitioner, respondent no. 1 with the help of police for his illegal acts had forcibly taken him from his office in a Tata Sumo Jeep and was illegally detained. Several other allegations also had been made and it is stated that the petitioner gave a complaint before the Special Court for Human Rights (I Additional Sessionsm, judge) Warangal vide S. C. No. 126 of 2002 and the said case is said to be pending for enquiry under Section 12 (A) of Human rights Ac, 1993. Certain other details also had been narrated. It was further stated that respondent No. l had taken the help of police, Adilabad and kidnapped the petitioner on 17-4-2002 by wrongfully detaining the petitioner in Dhanalaxmi lodge at Adilabad and forced him to execute some documents and immediately telegrams were issued by the staff members of the petitioner, family members of the petitioner to the Honourable the Chief justice, to the Honourable Home Minister and to the Director General of Police. The petitioner was abducted with the help of police since the case in Human Rights courts was posted for further evidence of the petitioner on 19-4-2002. The petitioner was abducted with the help of police since the case in Human Rights courts was posted for further evidence of the petitioner on 19-4-2002. It was further stated that the telegram was numbered as Writ Petition No. 8184 of 2002 and by; order, dated 30-4-2002 this Court dismissed the said writ petition giving right to the petitioner to agitate before the appropriate forum. It was further stated that since telegrams were issued by the petitioner, he was remanded by police of Adilabad on 23-4-2002 by producing him before the judicial Magistrate of First Class at Adilabad later on, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. It is stated that Crime No. 51 of 2002 registered against the petitioner under sections 406, 420 read with 506 I. P. C. , is ex facie, untenable, illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of Adilabad II Town Police. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) THE main ground of attack is that inasmuch as none of the acts alleged had occurred within any portion of Adilabad district, the F. I. R. itself could not have been registered by the concerned police. The other ground of attack is that this first information was registered only with a view to threaten the petitioner to withdraw the further proceedings relating to his prosecution of Human Rights. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also had referred to section 181 (4) of the Code of Criminal procedure in this regard. ( 5 ) SECTION 181 of the Code deals with the place of trial in case of certain offences. This provision falls under Chapter 13 dealing with the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in enquiries and trials. Sub-section (4) of section 181 of the Code reads as hereunder:"any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. " ( 6 ) CHAPTER 12 of the Code deals with the information to police and their powers to investigate. " ( 6 ) CHAPTER 12 of the Code deals with the information to police and their powers to investigate. Section 156 of the code deals with Police Officer s power to investigate cognizable case and it reads as hereunder :"police officer s power to investigate cognizable case :- (1) Any officer-in-charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. (2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate; (3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. ( 7 ) IT may be appropriate to have a look at Section 36 of the Code also, which deals with the powers of superior officers of police and the said provision reads as hereunder :"powers of superior officers of police :- police officer superior in rank to an officer- in-charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. " ( 8 ) IT is needless to say that the enquiry is something different from investigation and Section 2 (g) of the Code defines enquiry as hereunder : "inquiry" means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a magistrate or Court". ( 9 ) SECTION 2 (h) of the Code defines investigation as hereunder :"investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. " ( 10 ) ON a prima facie reading of the allegations made, it appears that none of the acts complained had occurred within the limits of Adilabad II Town Police station, but, however, the crime had been registered. ( 11 ) IN the light of the different provisions of the Code referred to supra, the registration of the crime by the concerned police station no doubt, cannot be sustained, but. ( 11 ) IN the light of the different provisions of the Code referred to supra, the registration of the crime by the concerned police station no doubt, cannot be sustained, but. however, that is not the end of the matter. Inasmuch as the matter is at the stage of investigation, it is made clear that the competent police officer and the relevant police station are at liberty to further proceed with the investigation if any appropriate steps are taken by the concerned in this regard. Except giving this liberty, nothing more can be done. With the above observation, the proceedings in Crime No. 51 of 2002 are hereby quashed. Criminal petition is accordingly. allowed subject to the observations made supra.