Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Punati Vijaya Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 October, 2019
Author: G.Shyam Prasad
Bench: G.Shyam Prasad
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION Nos.
13426, 13443, 13463, 13580 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Since the parties and the issue involved in all the above writ petitions are one and the same, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
All the writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent -police for compliance of the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Writ Petition No. 13426 of 2019 The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.149 of 2019 on the file of Sattenapalli Town Police Station, which is registered basing on the report said to have been submitted by one Dr.Busa Kalyan Chakravarthi Reddy, Sattenapalli, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
Writ Petition No. 13443 of 2019 The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.164 of 2019 on the file of Narasaraopet II Town Police Station, which is registered basing on the written report said to have been submitted by one Ala Shekhar, Narasaraopet, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 506 r/w.34 IPC.
2Writ Petition No. 13463 of 2019 The petitioner is A-3 in Crime No.231 of 2019 on the file of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station, Guntur District, which is registered basing on the undated typed report said to have been submitted by one Smt.Aravapalli Padmavathi, Narasaraopet, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 384, 323, 447, 506 r/w. 34 IPC. Writ Petition No. 13580 of 2019 The petitioner is A-1 in Crime No.131 of 2019 on the file of Narasaraopet I Town Police Station, Guntur District, which is registered basing on the written report said to have been submitted by one Thalla Venkata Koti Reddy, Narasaraopet, for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 506 r/w. 34 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are all punishable with less than seven years and upto seven years and therefore, the respondents have to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. during investigation of the crime. Learned counsel submits that there was abnormal delay in lodging the complaint against the petitioner, as the alleged incident occurred in the year 2017 and the complaint was lodged in the year 2019. The complaint lodged beyond three years has 3 to be considered as a delay as per the decision rendered in Priyanka Srivastava's Case. He submits that the police have registered the crime without conducting any preliminary enquiry as there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint.
It is the case of the petitioner that at the behest of local politicians, the above crimes were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner totally denies the allegations made in the complaints lodged against her demanding money for providing employment. The petitioner is a Gynecologist by profession and daughter of Dr.Kodela Siva Prasad, Ex-cabinet Minister, in the State of Andhra Pradesh and due to political reasons, she was falsely implicated in the crimes.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in D.K.Basu V.State of West Bengal1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation about the genuineness and bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. It is also observed that denying person's personal liberty is a serious matter for consideration and in such cases, the police ought to have taken precautions of conducting preliminary enquiry before registering the crime.
1 . AIR 1997 SC 610 4 It is the case of the petitioner that she has filed Crl.P.Nos.4025, 4026, 4027 & 4028 of 2019 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police to release the petitioner in the event of her arrest in connection with the above crimes. The said criminal petitions are dismissed by this Court.
Learned counsel submits that the parameters of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. are different and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compliance of the provisions of Section 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. As per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is served on the accused.
In the instant case, the complaints were lodged with a delay of three years and the maximum punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioner are less than seven years and the respondent police neither complied with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor obeyed the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar V.State of Bihar2. He submits that the petitioner has got the statutory and legal right for issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The petitioner is the permanent resident of Narasaraopet and is ready and willing to co-operate with the speedy investigation in the crimes.
2 .(2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273 5 Learned Government Pleader for Home vehemently opposed for issuing a direction to the police to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. He submits that during investigation, if a direction under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is issued, another direction to follow the procedure under section 41-B Cr.P.C. also may be issued as both the provisions are connected with each other.
The point for consideration is that whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction to the police to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
Admittedly, the police have registered the crimes and the petitioner has filed criminal petitions seeking anticipatory bail and this court dismissed the criminal petitions.
In Arnesh Kumar's case cited supra-2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued certain guidelines with regard to procedure to be followed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice of appearance before Police Officer:
1) The police officer shall, in all cases, where the arr5est of a person is not required under the provisions of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the offence.
6It is obvious that the aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases, where the arrest of a person is not required under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time.
In Arnesh Kumar's Case cited supra-2, it is made clear that the Police Officer does not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate does not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In that regard, certain guidelines were issued to all the State Governments not to automatically arrest when a case is registered against the accused but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.
Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents submits that as per the decision in Arnesh Kumar's Case for compliance of the provisions under Sections 41 and 41-A, the police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. The police officer shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention. The decision not to arrest the accused be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of 7 the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. Inter alia the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued directions to all the State Governments forwarding a copy to the Chief Secretaries as also the Director Generals of Police of all the State Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of all the High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance.
This Court fortified by the decision rendered by the High Court of Calcutta in WP No.18449 of 2017 wherein, the grievance of the petitioner therein is that the effective investigation was not carried out with regard to the criminal case registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 354/324/341/506/34 IPC. The court held that the offences punishable are less than seven years and therefore, a direction was issued to the investigating Agency to follow the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar's Case.
In the instant case, the petitioner has come forward to co-operate with the investigating Agency, in which event, it is obvious that the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has to be followed as the 8 offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable less than seven years of imprisonment. Therefore, the investigating Agency is directed to follow the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar's Case during investigation of the crimes.
With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD 15.10.2019 Mjl/* 9 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.
13426, 13443, 13463, 13580 of 2019 .10.2019 Mjl/*