N. JAYA KUMAR Vs. KANDALI SRINIVASULU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH petitions are filed tinder Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., one by the father of deceased(Ashok Kumar) and the other by the Public Prosecutor representing the State seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail order granted by this Court(another bench) during vacation in Crl. P. No. 5683 of 2014 in favour of the petition respondents 1 and 2, who are no other than the in -laws of the deceased.

(2.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent -State in both petitions and perused the material placed on record.

(3.) IT is practically a G.D. entry for no cognizable offence to register any crime under IPC or other penal law and registration as if a crime under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is practically not meant for, from the very section speaks to police enquire and report on suicide and it is to say it is of making a G.D. entry if there is any cognizable offence from the enquiry from investigation revealed, then a regular crime is supposed to be registered. Needless to say this Court way back in a judgment reported in Kilaparthi Suri Appa Rao v. State of A.P., re. By Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another, 2004 (2) ALT (crl.) 333 (AP) and in another expression of a Division Bench of this Court reported in, 2002(6) Alt 626 (DB) observed that registering any crime under Section 102 Cr.P.C. of finding any unclaimed property does not arise for no cognizable offence or any other law and similarly so far as Section 174 Cr.P.C. also as Section 2(4) Cr.P.C. defines the offence as an act or omission made punishable by any law in force. It is from the said registering, it was called crime even for no cognizable offence or non -cognizable offence to set the law in motion by mentioning simply under Section 174 Cr.P.C. lead to some confusion.