D RAJA MOULI Vs. STATE OF A.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent is the de facto complainant. It is her case that the petitioner who is the first accused married the second respondent inducing and making promises. She contended that the first accused committed the offence under Sections 504, 323 and 506 IPC. The First Information Report was registered against the petitioner herein in Crime No.453 of 2008 on the file of the Uppal Police Station. Sri V.Ravi Kumar, representing the petitioner contended that in view of the bar under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., police cannot proceed against the petitioner. Admittedly all the offences in respect of which the First Information Report was registered are non-cognizable offences. Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. prescribes investigation into a non-cognizable offence without the permission of the Court. On the strength of Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the First Information Report is liable to quashed.

(2.) Sri K.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the very petition become infructuous as charge sheet was already filed and registered as C.C.No.116 of 2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very filing of the charge sheet without the permission of the Court is illegal and is tantamount to non est and that the petitioner has no alternative but to seek for quashment of the First Information Report.

(3.) As soon as the charge sheet is laid, the First Information Report loses its significance in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner can seek for quashment of the charge sheet and not the First Information Report. It would appear that by the time the petition was laid, the charge sheet was not laid. The charge sheet reads as C.C.No.116 of 2011. It would appear to have been filed in the year 2011. Be that as it may, once the charge sheet was laid, this petition to quash the First Information Report becomes infructuous.