PUSHPALATHA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 and 2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, DD-II CCS, Control Room, Nampally, Hyderabad and the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, CCS, Nampally, Hyderabad in transferring the case in Cr. No. 181 of 2002 dt. 3-5-2002 from Women Police Station, Hyderabad to N.T.P.C. Police Station at Karimnagar for investigation as illegal and also contrary to the directions of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and quash the notice dt. 13-7-2002 issued by the 3rd respondent i.e. the S.H.O. N.T.P.C. Police Station, Karimnagar in Cr. No. 55 of 2002.

(2.) THE case of the writ petitioner is that she had lodged a private complaint on 25-2-2002 against her husband Sri B. Prasad before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC and also under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and that the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the respondents 1 and 2 for investigation and filing report by 10-5-2002. Accordingly, the matter was handed over to the 2nd respondent for investigation by the 1st respondent and thereupon a case in Cr. No. 181 of 2002 dt. 3-5-2002 was registered for the aforesaid offences and the petitioner was summoned by the 2nd respondent and her statement was also recorded. However, suddenly, the petitioner received a notice dated 13-7-2002 from the 3rd respondent summoning her and her witnesses for investigation in Cr. No. 55 of 2002. On enquiry, she was told that the complaint filed against her husband was referred to 3rd respondent for investigation. The grievance of the petitioner is that such transfer from the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent is without notice and further it causes great inconvenience to her as she being a lady cannot go to NTPC police station which is 250 KMs away from Hyderabad and further that her husband who is working in NTPC is an influential person and there is every likelihood of threat to her and her witnesses from him. The main ground on which the present writ petition is filed is that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to seizing (seisin ?) of the matter. It was also further pointed out that her husband had filed O.P. No. 28 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapally seeking divorce which was transferred to the Family Court at Hyderabad as per the orders of this Court in Tr.C.M.P. No. 62 of 2000 dt. 13-6-2000 to be tried and disposed of along with O.P. No. 170 of 2000 filed by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in transferring the complaint to the 3rd respondent is not valid under law. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Home and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the fact that the complaint filed by the petitioner was already seizing (seisin ?) by the 2nd respondent at Hyderabad on the directions of the learned Magistrate, the same cannot be transferred to any other investigating authority including the 3rd respondent. The learned Government Pleader and also the learned Public Prosecutor sought to sustain the impugned action on the ground that the case was transferred to the 3rd respondent only for the purpose of investigation.