Back
2001 Supreme(AP) 466
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, S.B.SINHA
Asaduddin Owaise - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-25-01
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482, 173, 2, 156, 190 and 39 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 332, 307, 399 and 402 - Criminal Amendment Act - Sections 7, 3 and 4 - Criminal Appeal - A first information report was lodged by Inspector of Police Station on his own report alleging that petitioners and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and obstructed him and other Police Officers from discharging their duties as Public Servants and caused injuries to them and damage to police vehicles and R - T - C buses by pelting stones and a case was registered for above offences - Investigating Officer took up investigation although he himself is a complainant case was investigated and matter was committed to Court of Session - At that stage an application was filed - Before Referring Judge strong reliance has been placed - A learned single Judge of this Court in said decision placing reliance on decision of this Court as also a decision of Apex Court in inter alia that investigation gets vitiated if complainant himself investigates offence - Held, Therefore not a case where Apex Court held that by reason of investigation conducted by complainant himself entire investigation stood vitiated - In information that a public servant had amassed assets disproportionate to known sources of his income District Inspector A - C - B registered a case and took up investigation - This Court in facts and circumstances of case held that complainant cannot act as Investigating Officer and that investigation is vitiated - In Xavier s case High Court has rendered decision in particular facts and circumstances of that case - It was a case where in presence of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police accused behaved in a disorderly manner and was found to be in a drunken state - If it is to be held that all such investigations conducted by Officers in-charge of Police Stations would get vitiated same may be counter-productive as by reason of duties and functions attached to officers in-charge of Police Stations they are also required to look after maintenance of law and order - Petition dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS matter has been placed before us on a reference made by a learned single (Judge) of this Court viz. , C. Y. Somayajulu, J. for a decision on the following question :"whether the investigation conducted by a Police Officer, in respect of a cognizable offence that occurred in his presence in which he is not a victim, and in respect of which he lodges a report, gets vitiated or not, and whether the decision of this Court in Maddu Lakshmana Rao v. State of A. P. , 2000 (2) ALD (Cri) 147, lays down the correct proposition of law ?"
( 2 ) THE Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by accused 1 and 2 who were charge-sheeted along with others for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 332, 307, I. P. C. and Sections 3 and 4 of P. P. D. Act and Section 7 of Criminal Amendment Act in Crime No. 49 of 1998 on the file of Shamsheergunj Police Station, Hyderabad, seeking quashing of the proceedings in S. C. No. 264 of 2000 on the file of the 1st Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
( 3 ) FACTS :a first information report was lodged by the Inspector of Police, Shamsheergunj Police Station on his own report alleging that the petitioners and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and obstructed him and other Police Officers from discharging their duties as Public Servants and caused injuries to them and damage to police vehicles and R. T. C. buses by pelting stones and a case was registered for the above offences. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation although he himself is a complainant. The case was investigated and the matter was committed to the Court of Session. At that stage, an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was filed. 3a. Before the Referring Judge strong reliance has been placed on Maddu Lakshmana Rao s case (2000 (2) ALD (Cri) 147 ). A learned single Judge of this Court, in the said decision, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Xavier v. State of Kerala, 1998 Cri LJ 3182, as also a decision of the Apex Court in Bhagawan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1975 SCC (Cri) 737 : (1976 Cri LJ 713), inter alia, held that investigation gets vitiated if the complainant himself investigates the offence. In terms of the said finding, the proceedings subsequent to the recording of the First Information Report were quashed and a fresh investigation by a competent officer was directed to be taken up. Relevant provisions of the Statute :
( 4 ) IN terms of Section 2 (d) of Code of Criminal Procedure, complaint does not include police report. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of Cr. P. C. defines police report to mean a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173 (2), Cr. P. C.
( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contain any provision debarring investigation being conducted by a Police Officer who is entitled thereto in law. Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus :"156. 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 to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XII. (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. "
( 6 ) IN terms of the aforementioned provisions, a Police Officer in-charge of a Police Station has the right to investigate any cognizable case and file a charge-sheet into Court. While considering the matter, it has to be borne in mind that no separate investigating agency has been created in the State. There does not exist any embargo in a
