M SHASHIKALA Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 22-1-2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 17686 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner herein lodged a First Information report against the unofficial respondents herein. The unofficial respondents also lodged a first information report against the appellant. The complaint of the appellant was found to be false whereas a charge sheet had been filed in the complaint filed by the unofficial respondents herein. The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition was that the respondents 1 and 2 while discharging the statutory functions were bound to investigate a crime properly and no interference therewith is permissible.

(3.) The learned Counsel would contend that it was the duty of the police authorities to inform the appellant about the result of the investigation and only in the counter filed by the respondents, it has been disclosed that a final report had been submitted on 8-11-1997 under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there exists a distinction between a 'First Information Report' and a 'Charge sheet'. According to the learned Counsel, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with an investigation and thus the learned single Judge must be held to have erred in law in dismissing the writ petition. In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Pearl Beaverages Ltd., New Delhi vs. State of A.P..