S.PURNACHANDRA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONING the order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein and whereunder, permission was granted to the police to conduct investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 120 -B IPC which are non -cognizable, this Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the same on the ground that the said order was passed without application of mind.

(2.) THE facts in issue are as under : On 08.10.2013 at about 2.30 p.m., the Sub -Inspector of Police, Narayanaguda Police Station, received a complaint from one Musunuri Srinivasa Rao, R/o.Flat No.505, H.No.

(3.) RELYING upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar and Others Vs M.K. Aiyappa and another , Sajjal Agarwal Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another , Medwin Hospitals, rep., by its M.D., B. Kameswara Rao Vs State of A.P., Pollution Control Board , Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Kota Vs Shukla and Brothers , Union Bank of India and others Vs Jai Prakash Singh and another , the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that reasons are to be recorded showing application of mind while directing the police to investigate into the non -cognizable offences under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., failing which great prejudice would be caused to the accused. Relying upon the Judgments of the Apex Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah & another Vs State of West Bengal , and Kunhumuhammed Vs State of Kerala the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that no reasons are necessary while granting permission to register a crime. According to him, the reference made under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and the permission granted under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C., are quite distinct and different in nature. He strenuously contends that reasons are required to be given while refusing to give permission to register a crime and not while granting permission to register a crime. He further submits that the impugned order shows application of mind while granting permission to register the crime and as such, the same warrants no interference from this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.