No interference required at the initial stage of investigation.

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A.1 in Crime No.30 of 2011 of Chikkadpally P.S., Hyderabad.

The facts leading to filing of the present petition, briefly, are as follows: The petitioner, Kolli Satyanarayana, Kolli Pandu Ranga Rao and Kolli Rama Devi have started partnership firm in the name and style of M/s.Sri Krishnaveni Poultry Needs, in the year 1986. One Kolli Venkata Padmanabham joined in the firm as a partner on 08.09.1988. The said firm was registered with Registrar of Firms, vide Registration No.1527/1989. Kolli Satyanarayana retired from the partnership firm in the year 1992 and one Gangaram joined as one of the partners of the firm.

The petitioner submitted Form-V affidavits of Kolli Venkata Padmanabham, Kolli Pandu Ranga Rao (third respondent) and Kolli Rama Devi (fourth respondent) before the Registrar of Firms, Hyderabad (second respondent). Basing on the Form-V affidavits, the second respondent had made necessary entries in the relevant registers. On coming to know about the same, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein filed appeal before the second respondent, who in turn rectified the entries. The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.266 of 2011 on the file of this Court challenging the action of the second respondent and the said writ petition was dismissed on 20.4.2012.

On 24.01.2011, the second respondent submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer (SHO), Chikkadpally P.S., who in turn registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2011 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 70 of Indian Partnership Act against the petitioner.

Heard Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold: (1) the SHO, Chikkadpally P.S. ought not to have registered Crime No.30 of 2011 under Section 70 of Indian Partnership Act, which is a non-cognizable offence, without obtaining prior permission from the concerned Magistrate; and (2) Two F.I.Rs cannot be registered for the same offences against the same person.

Section 2(l) of Cr.P.C. defines non-cognizable offence. As per Schedule-II of Cr.P.C. if the punishment prescribed for an offence (other than I.P.C.) is less than 3 years or with fine only, it is a non-cognizable offence. Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., mandates that no police officer is entitled to investigate a non-cognizable offence without obtaining permission of the concerned Magistrate. The punishment prescribed under Section 70 of Indian Partnership Act is three months, or fine, or with both. Undoubtedly the offence under Section 70 of Indian Partnership Act is will come within the definition of non-cognizable offence. It is an admitted fact that the SHO, Chikkadpally P.S. has not obtained any order from the concerned Magistrate to conduct investigation in this case. As per Schedule-I of Cr.P.C., Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC are cognizable offences. In view of Section 156 Cr.P.C., Police officer need not obtain any permission from the concerned Magistrate to conduct investigation of a cognizable offence. Crime No.30 of 2011 was registered for cognizable and non- cognizable offences. For better appreciation of rival contentions, it is not out of place to extract hereunder Section 155(4) Cr.P.C.

155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.-

(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.

A perusal of the above provision clearly manifests that if a crime consists of both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, non-cognizable offence can be treated as cognizable offence, because of the legal fiction enshrined there