B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner in Cr. No. RC 3 (S)/97-BPL on the file of the Director, Central Bureau of investigation as being violative of Article 21 of Indian Constitution as also Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment act, 1946. The petitioner was hitherto selected to IFS in the competitive examination conducted by UPSC during november, 1993. He was placed on probation in the following year. He married one Ms. M. Vani, but the marriage ran into trouble and the result was the proceedings under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. We are not concerned with the above prosecution, but the same is stated because the petitioner harps upon the same, as according to him, the criminal prosecution is the result of the manipulations of the brother of his estranged wife. Of Course, the marriage ended in divorce on 9-7-1997 and when the divorce proceedings were pending, he had appeared for Civil Services (Preliminary) examination in 1996. On 1-11-1996, he appeared for the main examination. The examination centre was a college at Bhopal. It is alleged that in the said examination, he had indulged in criminal acts punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 474, read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code. First Information Report to that effect dated 20-1-1997 was lodged by one Mr. K. P. Pandian, the Joint Secretary of Union Public service Commission, New Delhi. The same was registered as Crime No. RC 3 (S)/97- bpl. That is the prosecution which is challenged in this writ petition and the prayer is to quash the same. After registering the crime, the same was entrusted to one mr. Atul Hajela, Sub-Inspector, CBI, Bhopal for investigation. At that stage, this writ petition was filed and there was a stay granted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he belongs to State of Andhra Pradesh and that the Central bureau of Investigation has got a branch at hyderabad also and as his former brother-in-law is the person who is behind the launching of the prosecution and as the matter emanated from Andhra Pradesh, this high Court is having jurisdiction and that as there is absolutely no prima facie material to support the case of the prosecution, the same is liable to be quashed at the inception. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no part of the cause of action arose at Andhra Pradesh and that the offences alleged are attributable to a place at Bhopal and that there is prima facie case to sustain prosecution and that his marriage dispute has got no concern with these proceedings and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 2 ) TO quash a criminal prosecution at the threshold, a reading of the First information Report itself should not reveal any semblance of criminal charge, as otherwise, the Court s intervention would amount to encroaching on the powers of the investigating Agency. But, in any event, this Court is not having any jurisdiction as no part of cause of action arose in Andhra pradesh. The accusation relates to the alleged offences said to have been committed by the petitioner while writing the Main examination at Bhopal and it is apt to extract the material part of the complaint, upon which the First Information Report was lodged and registered:"on 1-1-1996 when the General Studies paper-I was in progress, Shri M. Balakrishna Reddy who was appearing at the said centre under Roll No. 54248 asked for a supplementary answer-book. The Invigilator on duty whole supplying the supplementary answer-book to the candidate noticed that the candidate was already in possession of some supplementary answer-books which had not been supplied to him by the centre. The invigilator also noticed that the candidate had written only 10 pages out of 24 pages of the main answer-book and, therefore, there was no question of any supplementary answer-book having been supplied to him earlier. On questioning, the cand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document