K RAMANA Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking a writ or direction in the nature of a mandamus directing the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Suryapet, the 2nd respondent and action of the 2nd respondent referring the complaint to the Station House Officer, Penpahad Police Station, the 1st respondent, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation, which was registered as Crime No. 25 of 1990, as illegal and consequently quash the same.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the 3rd respondent is the senior paternal uncle's wife of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner purchased Ac. 49-21 guntas of land in various survey numbers situate in Bhaktallapur village, Nalgonda District under an agreement of sale dated 18-5-1982 from the 3rd respondent for a consideration of Rs. 40.000/-. After paying the entire consideration, he was put in possession of the land on the same day. Since the date of purchase, the 1st petitioner is paying the land revenue and his name is entered in the revenue records as possessor. In the year 1987, some third parties started interfering with the possession of the 1st petitioner. Then he filed O.S .No. 885 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Suryapet against third parties for a permanent injunction. Pending the said suit, he also filed I.A.No. 175 of 1987 and obtained interim order of injunction, which was later made absolute. While so, the 3rd respondent filed a private complaint before the 2nd respondent aginast the petitioners and another alleging that the petitioners forged the agreement of sale dated 18-5-1982, which was filed in the court in O.S.No. 885 of 1987, and that the 3rd respondent has not at all executed the same in favour of the 1st petitioner. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent referred the complaint under section 156 (3) CrP.C. to the 1st respondent for investigation. The 1st respondent registered the same as Crime No. 25 Of 1990 under Sections 192,193,423,465,466, 467 and 468 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, arrested the 1st petitioner and later on released him on bail.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences alleged unless a complaint is filed by the Court or anybody on behalf of the Court as laid down under Section 195 CrP.C., that in this case since the complaint was filed by the 3rd respondent-not by Court or any person on behalf of the Court-the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to refer the matter under Section 156 (3) CrP.C. to the police for investigation and that, therefore, the writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for.