V. NARENDRA BABU Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent-Station House Officer of Kankipadu Police Station, Vijayawada City, in registering the FIR in Crime No.239/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 403, 408, 420 and 477A of IPC and under Sec. 66C read with Sec. 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2008, against the petitioners on the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the 4th respondent, as unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same.

(2.) Facts of the prosecution case, germane to dispose of this writ petition, as set out in the FIR, may be stated as follows:

(3.) The 3rd respondent-Station House Officer of Kankipadu Police Station, who registered the FIR, filed counter affidavit stating that the 4th respondent, by name M.Murali Krishna, lodged a report with him stating that he is the director of VEMPL, which is doing business in providing classes and coaching for competitive examinations to the students and educational services to various institutions under its branch "Sri Chaitanya" and other branches and Sri Chaitanya College established Gosala branches at Gosala campus in 2014 and that they have developed data relating to academic curriculum, study material, teaching methods, question bank etc., by spending crores of rupees and stored the same in their hard disk of their computer and that the petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3 who are the employees of the said Sri Chaitanya group who got domain over the said data and both the computer hardware and software and that they all conspired together and stolen the aforesaid data of VEMPL and started making use of the said data in their educational institution to have wrongful gain for them and wrongful loss to VEMPL. It is stated that he has registered the said report as a case in Crime No.239/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 403, 408, 420 and 477A of IPC and under Sec. 66 read with Sec. 43 and under Sec. 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and has been investigating the same and that about four witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. It is stated that it is mandatory on the part of the Investigating Agency to register the FIR when the report discloses commission of a cognizable offence as held by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumar v. State of U. P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 and as per the ratio of the said judgment, preliminary enquiry is required to be conducted only in (a) matrimonial, family disputes, (b) commercial offences, (c) medical negligence cases and (d) corruption cases, and the present case is not falling in the category of above cases and as such he has registered the FIR and investigating the same. It is stated that the investigation is at preliminary stage and if the Police are allowed to continue the investigation that they would be able to file final report under Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C after collecting evidence and that the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition to quash the proceedings at the initial stage of the investigation as the case is not falling within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 to quash the FIR. Therefore, it is prayed to vacate the interim order and allow him to proceed with the investigation.