ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short'Cr.P.C''), by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in Crime No.68 of 2013 on the file of Miryalaguda I Town PS, Nalgonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

202, 290 and 506 IPC.

2.

Heard the learned coun5el for both sides and perused the record.

3.

The learned counsel for petitioner/accused would submit that ttrough the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused are non-cognizable offences, the S.H.O Miryalaguda I Town PS, erroneously issued the First Information Report in Crime No.68 of 2013 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that there is no information to constitute any cognizable offence. In the given circumstances of the case, the S.H,O, Miryalaguda i Town PS, ought not have registered the FIR and proceeded with investigation and ultimately prayed to allow the criminal petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.6B of 2013 on the file of Miryalaguda I Town pS, Nalgonda, registered For the offences under Sections 202, 290 and 506 IPC.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the criminal petition contending that there is substantial inFormation to register the FIR and proceed with againSt the petitioner/accused and ultimately prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.

5.

In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the point for determination in this Criminal petition is:

"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in Crime No.68 of 2O13 on the file of Miryalaguda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 2O2, 29O and 5O6 IPC, are liable to be quashed?

FQINT:

As seen from the material placed on record, the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused in the subject FIR are Sections 202, 290 and 506 IPC. AII these three offences are non-

cognizable offe n ces.

7. It is apt and appropriate to extract Section t54 Cr.p.C, which reads as follows:

"Section 754 - Information in cognizable cases (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

xx xx....

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusat on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied )

that such information discloses the commission of a the iiinizattte offence, shall either investigate case hi-mself or direct an investigation to be made by any /o,tiii otficer subordinate to him, in the manner provided -av iiit coau, and such officer shall have all the powers of a'n officer in charge of the potice station in relation to that offence."

Inviewofthemandategivenundertheaboveprovision,the First Information Report is required to be issued when there is of information with regard to 'the commission cognizable offences. In the instant case/ there are no allegations of cognizable offences against the petitioner/accused in the subject crime. The S.H.O, Miryalaguda I Town PS, erroneously registered the subject crime and issued First Information Report for the non-cognizable offences i.e, Sections 202, 290 and 506 IPC' Ttrerefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/ accused amounts to abuse of process of Iaw' Under these c