Allowed

S.Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Dec 2012CRLP/5521/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench allowed a writ petition and criminal petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. and criminal proceedings. The High Court found that the F.I.R. was manipulated by the Station House Officer who filed false affidavits regarding discrepancies in police diaries and accused names. Consequently, both the F.I.R. and criminal proceedings were quashed, and the Officer was suspended.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; F.I.R. in Cr.No.94 of 2010 quashed; Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.254 of 2010 quashed; Station House Officer suspended.

S.Srinivasulu, Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

+ W.P.No.24030 of 2010 & CRIMINAL PETITION No.5521 of 2012

¶3

% 03.12.2012

¶4

W.P.No.24030 of 2010

¶5

# Sunkara Srinivasulu and others ….petitioners Vs. $ 1. The Station House Officer, Owk Police Station, Kurnool District and others …. Respondents Criminal.P.No.5521 of 2012 S.Srinivasulu and others … Petitioners Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another … Respondents

¶6

!Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi Counsel for the Respondents: G.P.for Home, Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy and Public Prosecutor Head Note: ? Cases referred:

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶8

Crl.P.No.5521 of 2012 & W.P.No.24030 of 2010

¶9

COMMON ORDER:

¶10

The petitioners 1 to 4 in the writ petition as well as in the criminal petition are A.1 to A.4 in Cr.No.94 of 2010 of Owk Police Station of Kurnool District. They are accused

¶11

of offence punishable under Section 353/34 IPC. They filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus declaring action of the 1^st respondent/Station House Officer, Owk Police Station in registering F.I.R.No.94 of 2010 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, vitiated by settled principles of legal position and violative of fundamental and constitutional right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently quashing the same. After completing investigation, the police filed charge sheet in that crime for the said offence against A.1 to A.4 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalli, Kurnool District and it was taken cognizance by the Magistrate for the above offence as C.C.No.254 of 2010. For quashing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.254 of 2010, the criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶12

2. Even though criminal petition is filed questioning procedure adopted by the police during registration of the crime and investigation as well as merits of the case, the petitioners’ counsel fairly submitted that in the criminal petition that he is not seeking relief on merits/contents of the case, as the accused are prepared to face trial in the trial Court on factual aspects of the case subject to the result in this Court in these proceedings.

¶13

3. The only point on which the petitioners’ counsel seeks relief in the writ petition as well as in the criminal petition is that there was manipulation of F.I.R. by the Station House Officer while registering Cr.No.94 of 2010. The 3^rd respondent in the writ petition who is the 2^nd respondent in the criminal petition by name D.Kasaiah is the 1^st informant/de facto complainant in this crime. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that originally Cr.No.94 of 2010 was registered against five persons as accused namely A.1 to A.4 and Sunkara Venkateswarlu, son of Kondanna and that subsequently the said F.I.R. was replaced by another F.I.R. showing A.1 to A.4 alone as the accused persons and that this procedure adopted by the Station House Officer, who is named as the 2^nd respondent/B.Srinivasulu Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Owk Police Station in the writ petition is unknown to criminal law and contrary to prescribed criminal procedure and is also unconstitutional. The petitioners filed Photostat copies of both F.I.Rs in the same Cr.No.94 of 2010. On look at copies of

¶14

two F.I.Rs in Cr.No.94 of 2010, it is evident that not only written first informations given by the de facto complainant/D.Kasaiah are different as well as printed proforma of F.I.R. attached to both the said reports are different. Though scribe of both reports and date of both reports are one and the same, the script as well as contents of both F.I.Rs are different. First F.I.R. is computerized copy of printed portion, whereas printed proforma of the 2^nd F.I.R. is filled up with hand on conventionally printed proforma and not on computerized proforma. In 1^st F.I.R., A.1 to A.4 and Sunkara Venkateswarlu are shown as accused persons, whereas in 2^nd F.I.R., A.1 to A.4 alone were written and shown as accused persons, by deleting Sunkara Venkateswarlu from F.I.R. It is only on the basis of the the said replaced information, the Sub-Inspector of Police by name B.Srinivasulu Reddy filed charge sheet into Court, even after interim stay was granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.30764 of 2010. Since the said interim stay order in the writ petition was not communicated to the Magistrate and it was not brought to notice of the Magistrate, the Magistrate cannot be found fault for taking cognizance of the offence and assigning C.C.Nubmer to the charge sheet. There is lot of manipulation by Sub-Inspector of Police in this matter right from the stage of registration of crime till filing of charge sheet/final report before the Magistrate. Such manipulations and manoeuvre cannot be allowed to be perpetrated in a public office particularly in a police station which is an important organ in the administration of criminal justice. This is nothing but subverting the criminal justice system and it cannot go scot-free particularly when it has come to notice of this Court and when truth thereof is sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioners/accused in the writ petition.

¶15

4. In the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition, the Sub-Inspector of Police by name B.Srinivasulu Reddy admitted issuing two types of printed proforma of F.I.R., one on computerized printed proforma and the other filled up with hand on conventionally printed proforma, and also naming five accused persons in the 1^st proforma and naming only 4 accused persons in 2^nd proforma. He tried to throw blame on computer operator of the police station for showing 5 accused persons in 1^st proforma. In case, the difference is only from printed portion of F.I.R., at best, the explanation sought to be given by Sub-Inspector of Police may stand. But, unfortunately for the said Sub-Inspector, each of the two printed proformas in Cr.No.94

¶16

of 2010 is attached by two different reports given by the 1^st informant/de facto complainant/D.Kasaiah. There is absolutely no explanation either in counter-affidavit or in additional counter-affidavit of B.Srinivasulu Reddy on two different scripts with different contents of two different first informations given by D.Kasaiah attached to each of the two printed proformas of F.I.R. At this point, the mischief and manipulation of the said Sub-Inspector of Police is caught redhanded.

¶17

5. When this Court directed the Official respondents to produce general dairy of the police station, the Official respondents exhibited their adocity by throwing into this Court Photostat copy of two sheets styled as general dairy dated 23.06.2010, without any authentication. Therefore, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District to produce original general dairy of the police station for the relevant period. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District attended this Court in person and produced original general dairy. In the Photostat copy of general dairy of two sheets thrown into Court by the Assistant Government Pleader, there is no entry at 15:00 hours. But, in original general dairy produced by Superintendent of Police in this Court, there is entry at 15:00 hrs on 23.06.2010. The said entry in general dairy does not reveal any explanation offered by Sub-Inspector of Police in his counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit. There is attempt on the part of the said Sub-Inspector to manipulate entries in general dairy also by preparing a copy which is stated to be a Photostat copy, prepared by suppressing the relevant entry relating to this crime at 15:00 hrs. There are no entries in general dairy relating to receipt of two different first informations of the de facto complainant and issuing two types of F.I.Rs in the same Cr.No. 94 of 2010. The Sub-Inspector of Police also gave false affidavits in this Court on issuing two different F.I.Rs in the same Cr.No.94 of 2010. Therefore, F.I.R. in Cr.No.94 of 2010 which is vitiated by illegality as well as manipulation coupled with subverting criminal justice system, cannot be allowed to stand and it is liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

6. When basic document in the crime namely F.I.R. is being quashed, edifice built on such manipulated F.I.R. by way of final report/charge sheet cannot have legs to stand; and consequently the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.254 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalli are also liable to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶19

7. W.P.No.24030 of 2010: In the result, the writ petition is allowed making rule nisi absolute and quashing F.I.R. in Cr.No.94 of 2010 of Owk Police Station, Kurnool District. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District is directed to keep the 2^nd respondent namely B.Srinivasulu Reddy, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Owk Police Station under suspension forthwith and launch necessary disciplinary proceedings under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 or/and any other relevant Rules as well as criminal proceedings for the offences committed by him in the above fact scenario, and report compliance of the same to this Court immediately. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, as the said Official is not a proforma respondent in this writ petition.

¶20

8 . Criminal Petition No.5521 of 2012: In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing criminal proceedings in C.C.No.254 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalli.

¶21

_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶22

Dt.3^rd December, 2012 Note: L.R.Copy (B/o) PNV

S.Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Srinivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathi Srinivasa Rao, Vs M/s. Rohini Chit Fund, Vijayawada

Yandra Narasimha Murthy, Vs Kavuru Rama Krishna

Kandula Gangamma Vs Dugigam Srinivasa Rao

Bojjala Raja Reddy (died) Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Koneru Purna Prabhavathi Vs Nandamuri Gopala Rao

Pabbati YESUDAS.(DIED)AND3 Others. Vs Pabbati Sudarshanam.