M.MADHAVI LATHA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.48 of 2019 of II Town Police Station, Madanapalle, pending on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle.

(2.) This court has heard Sri P. Vasu Sekhar and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent. Despite notice the 2nd respondent did not appear. Proof of service is filed with USR No.59103 of 2019.

(3.) The short and simple question that arises in this case is whether the action of the 2nd respondent is correct and as per law or not. The FIR, which is the subject matter of the challenge, was registered on 10.05.2019. The offences alleged are under Sections 269, 270, 275 and 276 read with 34 IPC. The gist of the defence raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner or the other grounds urged by him to quash the proceedings is that the 2nd respondent has conducted an investigation into the matter even before the FIR was registered. He points out that basing on the alleged raid held on 05.05.2019, the FIR was registered on 10.05.2019. Learned counsel points out that even the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to the Inspector of Police clearly speaks of a search and seizure operation that was conducted on 05.05.2019. He therefore argues that the entire procedure in this case is vitiated. Apart from that he also points out that the seizure was supposedly intimated to the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court on 06.05.2019 itself. Therefore, he submits that once the intimation was given to a Magistrate under section 190 of Cr.P.C., it is the Magistrate alone who can take cognizance of the case and that the police cannot take action to register an FIR. He also submits that once the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence he will have to examine the complainant and follow the procedure under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The complaint, according to the learned counsel, should have been filed on 06.05.2019 itself. Once the so called search and seizure happened on 05.05.2019 or the report was given to the 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class on 06.05.2019, learned counsel submits that the police did not have the jurisdiction to take any further steps, let alone register an FIR. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments of the High Court of the Karnataka reported in L. Shankaramurthy v State,2012 9 Laws(kar) 150 and Lakshmikantha S.G. v The State and Ors.,2016 2 Laws(Kar) 30 and argues that the entire proceedings have to be quashed.