BEEBIJAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dt.7-8-91 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, CID, Hyderabad, the respondent, directing the petitioners to appear before her on 9-8-91.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioners are arryed as accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 in Crime No.131 of 1990 of Police Station, Amberpet. The above crime was registered against the petitioners and seven others under Sections 420,498- A and 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Originally a private complaint was filed by Mrs. Farhana Parveen, who is the wife of the 1st accused, against the petitioners and 7 others before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad. The Magistrate before talcing cognisance of the offences, referred the case to the Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, for investigation. The Police, Amberpet registered the crime on 29-5-90 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the police, Amberpet, went to Markapur and enquired with the petitioners. The investigation is still pending while so, the petitioners received the impugned noticedated 7-8-91 whereby they were directed to appear before the respondent on 9-8-1991. The said notice was served on the petitioners on 8-8-91 at Markapur. It is alleged that the police threatened to arrest the petitioner in case they failed to appear before the respondent on 9-8-91. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is suffering from Blood pressure and diabates and expressed her inability to appear before the respondent on the very next day. It is submitted that when once the investigation is being done by the Station House Officer, Amberpet police station, the respondent has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation and direct the petitioners to appear before her. The S.H.O. Amberpet P.S. is the proper authority to complete the investigation and file charge-sheet if a case is made out against the petitioners. The Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for two parallel investigations by different authorities and there is no valid sanction to issue the impugned notice. The petitioners having no other remedy, filed this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondent contended that a separate cell is constituted in the C.I.D. to deal with cases arising out of the atrocities against women and the same is headed by a Superintendent of Police and supporting staff of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspectors. The staff will deal with investigations in offences relating to harassment, dowry deaths and abetment of suicide against women. Whenever any person complains of in action or perfunctory investigation by the local police relating to atrocities against women preliminary enquiries will be made and after being satisfied that the investigation is not on proper lines, then the investigation is taken over by the C.I.D. All other cases are investigated by the local police. In the present case representations were received that the local police were adopting a lukewarm attitude in the progress of investigation. Therefore, to ascertain whether proper investigation was done or not by the local police, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioners. The enquiry is only to find out whether it is a fit case to be taken over for investigation from the local police. The impugned notice is valid and there are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore liable to be dismissed.