S. SRINIVASULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 1st 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.

(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.

(3.) 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 1st proforma and naming only 4 accused persons in 2nd proforma. He tried to throw blame on computer operator of the police station for showing 5 accused persons in 1st 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 of 2010 is attached by two different reports given by the 1st 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.