HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3978 OF 2024

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. S. Srinivasa Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.14 and Mr. Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), to quash the proceedings in Crime No.886 of 2023 pending on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad City.

3. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.14. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the Police of Panjagutta Police Station registered a case in Crime No.886 of 2023 on 24.12.2023 against one Mr. Abdul Asif for the offences punishable under Section - 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V. Act’); Section - 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for shirt ‘IPC’) and Section - 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short, ‘PDPP Act’).

4. In the said complaint, dated 24.12.2023, respondent No.2 alleged that on 24.12.2023 at around 2.45 AM, one BMW Car bearing registration No.TS 13ET 0777 drove in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Traffic Barricade at opposite Camp Office starting flyover. Due to the said act, the traffic barricade was completely damaged. Therefore, he requested the Police of Panjagutta Police Station to take action as per law.

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has included the name of petitioner herein as accused No.14 and also altered section of law from Section - 184 of MV Act, Section - 279 of IPC and Section - 3 of PDPP Act to Sections - 308, 419, 279, 201, 203, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218, 225A, 225B, 182 read with 109, 119 read with 34 of IPC, Sections - 184, 185, 187 and 188 read with 205 of M.V. Act and Section - 3 of the PDPP Act.

6. Challenging the said FIR, the petitioner filed the present petition contending that except confession of co-accused, there is no evidence against the petitioner herein. The Investigating Officer cannot alter provision of law without permission of the Court.

Absolutely, there is no evidence against the petitioner herein. After 42 days of registration of FIR, the Investigating Officer filed a remand case diary dated 05.02.2024. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 7. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of 68 witnesses. Investigation is almost complete. Accused No.1 is not co-operating in completion of Test Identification Parade (TIP). He is in Dubai. According to him, on completion of TIP of accused No.1, the Investigating Officer will lay charge sheet. 8. Accused Nos.11, 14 and 15 made confessions. There are other witnesses, who stated about the role played by the petitioner in commission of offence. On consideration of the said aspects only, the Investigating Officer added the petitioner herein as accused No.14 in the aforesaid FIR and also altered section of law. There is no need of obtaining permission from the concerned Magistrate while altering section of law. The petitioner has to avail the remedy of filing discharge application on filing of charge sheet by the Investigating Officer and taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein by the concerned Magistrate if there is no evidence against him. Therefore, investigation may not be scuttled at this stage. There are three crimes were also registered against the petitioner herein i.e., Crime No.136 of 2024 and 405 of 2017 and E-Petty Case No.HYD2323PC20104691 of Chilkalguda Police Station. Even the Inspector of Police, Chilkalguda Police Station addressed a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chilkalguda Division, Hyderabad, requesting to accord permission to open rowdy sheet against the petitioner vide letter dated 05.03.2024. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petit