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