IMPORTANT POINT
A Magistrate must exercise judicial discretion and apply mind before directing police investigations under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief;-

‘to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to FIR No.155 of 2016 on the file of 1st and consequently quash the Docket Order dated respondent Police Station 10.02.2016 in CFR No. 865 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan and the consequential investigation in Crime No. 155 of Magistrate at Vijayawada 2016 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City. Krishna District against the petitioner is concerned in the interest of justice."

2. The precise case of the petitioner is that he is the Accused No.2 in Crime No. 155 of 2016 of 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent filed private complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada (in short "the trial court") alleging that his son purchased the land under Registered Sale Deed dated 08.05.2006. The Accused No.1 created an agreement of sale-cum-GPA alleged to have been executed by Danthu Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy and thereafter executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 29.09.2014. It is further alleged that the said Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy did not execute the document, but it was executed by committing impersonation, which is incorrect. Accused No.1 is the rightful owner of the property and all original documents have been handed over to the petitioner. When there was interference in possession of the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S.No.206 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the son of the defacto complainant, which is pending. After lapse of one year, the present complaint has been filed only with an intention to take defence in the civil suit. The trial court without recording any reasons straight away referred the complaint to the police, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. Heard Mr. V. Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel, representing Mr. P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Home for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

4. During hearing learned Assistant Government Pleader, Home for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, categorically submitted that the a case in Crime No. 155 of 2015 has been registered by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and others basing on private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that the petitioner and others conspired together and hatched a plan to grab the property of the son of the complainant and in furtherance of their common intention had fabricated the election ID Card in the name of one Dantu Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy and used the same as genuine and created a sham document for their wrongful gain. The case is under investigation. Originally the said Danthu Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy is resident of Neredmet, Hyderabad and original documents along with other documents were lot and a paper publication was also punished in daily news papers and obtained certificate from the police that the documents were not traced out inspite of best efforts. The petitioner herein has filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 206 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. When the investigation was under progress, the petitioner filed the writ petition and obtained interim stay of all further proceedings. Therefore, 1st respondent is unable to file final report before the trial court. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable and requested to dismiss the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. The 1st respondent registered a case in Crime No. 155 of 2016 basing on a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada that the Accused No.1 had created sale deed in collusion with the Accuse