THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8810 of 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.399 of 2024 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal, registered for the offences under Sections 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Mr. Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State. Though the notice sent to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 has refused to receive the same and there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either in person or through counsel, as such, this Court after recording her absence proceeded to dispose of the present matter on merits. Perused the record.

03. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 2020, the husband of the de facto complainant was murdered by accused Nos.1, 3, and others, for which Crime No.299 of 2020 was registered. On 06.02.2024, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened the de facto complainant at Shadnagar venture. Further, accused No.4 along with some others threatened the de facto complainant at her residence in Kothagudem and warned her to compromise the murder case, failing which they would kill her son.

04(a). The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have no connection with the alleged offences. On receipt of the complaint from the de facto complainant, the Station House Officer, Choutuppal, submitted a requisition to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal, seeking permission to investigate the matter as the alleged offence is non-cognizable. The learned Magistrate granted permission on 06.03.2024, and accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4. 04(b). It is further submitted that the complaint shows that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly threatened the de-facto complainant at Shadnagar, where she was working. In fact, there is no village by the name of Shadnagar in Choutuppal Mandal or within the limits of Choutuppal Police Station; the said Shadnagar is situated in Ranga Reddy District. Further, it is alleged that petitioner/accused No.4 along with others threatened the complainant at her residence in Kothagudem village of Batasingaram Mandal, Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District. This village also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Choutuppal Police Station. Nevertheless, the Choutuppal Police entertained the complaint and sought permission from the Magistrate.

04(c). It is further submitted that as per Section 155 Cr.P.C., which deals with information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation thereof, Section 155(1) provides that when information is given to an officer in charge of a Police Station regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offence within the limits of such station, he shall enter the substance of the information in a prescribed register and refer the informant to the Magistrate. This clearly indicates that the police have jurisdiction only where the alleged offence is committed within the limits of their police station. Further, Section 155(2) mandates that no police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit it for trial.

4(d). It is further submitted that the order of permission accorded by the learned Magistrate is not a reasoned order and it was casually granted without proper application of mind to the contents of the complaint, and hence, is invalid in the eye of law. Moreover, the alleged complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant after a delay of one month from the date of the alleged incident, and no explanation has been offered for such delay. Hence, he prayed to quash