S NARASINGAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, who is A.5 in P.R.C. No.71/94 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, Adilabad district.

(2.) The facts of the case are that: on 5-3-1991, LW.1, Narukulla Rajeshwara Rao, gave a report to the SHO, PS, Dandepalli stating that his brother, N. Sagar Rao was found missing from 19-2-1991. He also stated therein that he has got suspicion against A-1 and A-2, Cheeti Gopala Rao and his son Cheeti Satyanarayana. On receipt of such report, the SHO of the said police-station registered it as Crime No. 12/91 for 'Man Missing' and took up investigation. The petitioner, who was working at that time as Inspector of Police, Luxettipet took up further investigation in the case. During the course of investigation he arrested A.1 and A.2. Subsequently, during the investigation of the crime, the petitioner also arrested Cheeti Gopala Rao and his son Cheeti Satyanarayana on 20-3-1991 and they were remanded to judicial custody. In the course of investigation, the petitioner recovered from Cheeti Gopala Rao and Cheeti Satyanarayana a gold chain and gold ring under the cover of Panchnama. Later the case was transferred to C.I.D. The C.I.D. Department during the course of investigation found that Cheeti Gopala Rao and Cheeti Satyanarayana are not connected with the crime and the alleged recovery from them is false. After completion of investigation the CID found that a case is made out against four other persons viz., Gangula Ramesh Babu, Nakka Gangaiah, Nakka Tirupathi and Nakka Lachaiah (A.1 to A.4 herein) and accordingly it laid the charge-sheet. A.1 to A.4 were charged with the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 211 IPC and Section 435 IPC, while the petitioner was charged with offences under Section 211 read with 302 IPC. The allegations made against the petitioner in the charge-sheet are:

(3.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner contending that he cannot be charge sheeted along with A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Section 201 read with 302 IPC. The offence under Section 211 IPC cannot be charged against him, unless a cpmplaint is filed by the same Court and the same cannot be taken cognizance of as provided under Section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. He further contended that he arrested Cheeti Gopala Rao and his son Satyanarayana, while discharging his duties as Inspector of Police in the course of investigation of a criminal case. As such, he was discharging his official duties as Inspector of Police. So, unless sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is obtained no prosecution can be launched against him. It is further contended that he cannot be an accused, as well as a witness in the same case, as it amounts to forcing the petitioner to depose against his own case and the same is barred under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It is lastly contended that the offence under Section 211 IPC alleged to have been committed by the petitioner cannot be said to have been committed in the same transaction or part of the same transaction and it is not the same and similar offence to the other offences which A.1 to A.4 were charged. Therefore, there cannot be a joint trial, as the same is not completed under Section 223 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.