G LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. G. Lakhsminarayana, Vice-chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, the petitioner herein is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the Inspector of Police, Humayunnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, in registering a case in Crime No. 155/87 under sections 500 and 501 I.P.C., against him and two others and consequently investigating into the same, is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Sri T.R.C. Reddy, who impleaded as the 2nd respondent, lodged a private complaint under sections 500 and 501 I.P.C., against the petitioner herein and two others (the Rector and the Acting Registrar) in the court of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation order section 156(1) Cr. P.C. to the 1st respondent herein. As a consequence of that direction the 1st respondent registered the case and started investigation. In the course of the investigation he wanted certain records to be produced by the petitioner. Sri Padmanabha Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner, says that the petitioner cannot be compelled to disclose or handover any material to the Inspector of Police, which will have the effect of incriminating him since that is forbidden by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Another contention raised by him is that the endeavours of the Inspector of Police in seeking the records from the petitioner are futile exercises in view of the fact that under section 199 Cr. P.C. no court can take cognizance of an offence under sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. except on a complaint by an aggrieved party and the investigation now being done by the Inspector of Police was not at the instance of an aggrieved party.

(3.) The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the IX Metropolitan Magistrates Court concerns with the action taken by the petitioner herein (as Vice-chancellor) and two others in reverting him from the post of Registrar and appointing him on another post which according to the 2nd respondent constitutes an act of defamation.