Anne Sudheer Babu vs The State Andhra Pradesh on 21 October, 2020

[Cites 49, Cited by 1]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Anne Sudheer Babu vs The State Andhra Pradesh on 21 October, 2020

Bench: C.Praveen Kumar

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


                  Criminal Petition No.1719 of 2020

ORDER :

1. The present Criminal Petition came to be filed by A4 (Retired Tahsildar) under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the investigation in crime No.14 of 2020 of Crime Investigation Department (CID) Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri, registered against one, K.Brahmananda Reddy (A1) and Others, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., Section 3(1)(g),(2)(Va) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 and Section 7 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.

2. The facts discernible from the report lodged by one, Yellamati Prasad Kumar, are as under :

It is stated that since 2014, one, Kommareddy Brahmananda Reddy (A1) used to come to the village of the informant i.e., Nidamanuru Village for land dealings. A1, who has a real estate office near Ambedkar statute in Mangalagiri Town, was introduced to the informant by one Pedapudi Andriyya and his sons Naga Raju and Rajesh. The informant, being a caste elder of Harijanawada, used to discuss about the land settlements. A1 is alleged to have settled a land dispute in respect of land admeasuring Ac.6.50 cents, existing between P.Andriyya, P.Naga Raju and P.Rajesh, purchased Ac.0.06 cents of the land and got it registered in the name of his wife in Sub-Registrar's office at Duggirala. The informant thought that he would be paid on par 2 with Nagaraju and Rajesh for settlement of the dispute, but, no amount was paid and the issue of payment was being dragged on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the informant and others were appointed to work in A1's office. Since then the informant and others used to attend the office of A1 at Mangalagiri regularly. At that time, they noticed frequent visits of Harijans, having assigned lands, to the office of A1. The informant was owning land to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Pedapalem Village. The informant was forced and threatened to execute a G.P.A.-cum- Agreement of Sale in favour of the son of A1 and after abusing the informant, the same was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at Mangalagiri. It is further alleged in the Report that in so far as Ac.6.50 cents of land in Pedapalem village, the informant was made to believe that he will be paid Rs.20,00,000/-, as he acted as an elder and settled the dispute, but no amount was paid. However, loan was advanced, to which the informant executed promissory notes. Though the informant claims to have repaid the entire amount, the promissory notes were not returned. The land papers of the informant were also not returned. When asked for the same, A1 is said to have abused the informant.

It is further alleged in the report that farmers belonging to scheduled caste community and who are residents of Mandadam, Velagapudi, Rayapudi, Lingayapalem, Venkatapalem, Krishnayapalem, Nelapadu, Inavolu, Betapudi, Sakhamuru, Thulluru, Errabalem, Navuluru, Dondapadu, Ananthavaram, Nekkallu and other villages used to come to the Office of A1. That about 160 acres of land belonging to Ambedkar Society, at 3 Rayapudi, 100 acres of land belonging to Lenin Society situated in the same village and lands situated at Bapujinagar, which belong to Madigas and which are assigned lands, were purchased by A1. After paying some paltry amount, entered into an agreement with the Harijans. Later, the accused got these properties registered after paying bribe to Sub-Registrar Gopal, who was working in the office of Sub-Registrar at Mangalagiri. According to him, huge extents of DKT lands were also purchased by A1. He pleads that nearly 1000 acres of assigned land was purchased in Capital Villages. In these transactions huge sum of money running into thousand crores changed hands. The transactions were made through bank accounts of A1 and his son which are in Bank of Baroda, Mangalagiri and Vijayawada. In this regard, Gummadi Suresh of M&M Showroom, Vijayawada, Shafibul Rahman of Krishna District, Kolli Siva Ram of Srinagar Colony, Vijayawada, Yaganti Srikanth and Lakshmisetti Sujatha of Guntur, Balusu Srinivasa Rao of Bangalore, Nimmagada Santha Kumar of Vangara, Nizamabad District, Dhulipalla Padmavathi, Paruchuri Prabhakara Rao, Lakkakula Padmavathi, Gogineni Suresh Babu, Bade Anjaneyulu, Challa Venkata Hanumantha Vijaya Kumar, Ambati Sitaram, Donepudi Durga Prasad and Dogiparthy Srinivasa Rao of Vijayawada, Potluri Sai Babu of Vijayawada City cable and his son Potluri Jayanth, Kasireddy Peraiah, Chikkala Vijayasaradhi, Vellanki Srinivasa Satya Prasad of Visakhapatnam, Paluri Somanadha Rao, Jonnavula Venkatswarlu, Kondayya Vijay, Kondayya Venkatesh and Dhulipalla Srujana of Vijayawada, Polavarapu Soma Sekhar of Hyderabad, Kudaravalli Narasaiah of 4 Vijayawada, Nannapaneni Krishna Murthy of Patamata, Vijayawada, Sitarama Raju of Vijayawada Gayathri Nagar, Indukuri Satyanarayana Raju of Hyderabad and some others, who belong to forward caste, purchased assigned lands belonging to S.Cs. & S.Ts. and other Government lands.

In the course of above transaction, one Sudheer Babu (petitioner), who worked as Tahsildar, Thullur, the revenue officials, who worked in Tadikonda and few CRDA officials made these assigned lands part of land pooling. According to him, by keeping the farmers in dark, about the scheme of the Government, all the accused conspired together and took away the lands stating that these lands are likely to be acquired by the Government without paying any compensation. It is alleged that if the lands are sold to the persons identified by them, A1 will take care of them, as he knows persons holding positions in the Government, and will arrange payment of some money as compensation. So saying, made them i.e., informant and others believe the same and got their lands transferred. As the enquiries made by the informant with natives of other villages revealed that they were cheated and lands were taken at a throw away price, the informant questioned A1 about the same. To which, A1 replied that the amount paid was more than sufficient for harijans and threatened, if any dispute is raised. Basing on this report, the above crime was registered on 27.2.2020.

3. After registering the crime, search proceedings under Section 165 Cr.P.C. were issued and accordingly on 28.2.2020 the 5 house of the petitioner i.e., residential flat bearing No.201, River View Residency, Opp. Vijayawada Club, Karakatta Road, Tadepalli Municipality, was searched in the presence of two independent witnesses. The search team consisting of Inspector of Police, Sub- Inspector of Police, Woman Police Constable, A.S.I. and P.C. of Ongole Taluk and I Town Police Stations, after following the due procedure, searched the house and inter alia seized the following document, which is shown at serial No.9 of the search proceedings :

"9) Made up file No.9 papers pertaining to Pattadar Passbooks of lands and other land related documents (1 to 23 sheets)."

4. Challenging the very registration of the crime, the petitioner herein filed the present application for quashing of the investigation in the above crime. On 24.3.2020, this Court, while issuing notice before admission, ordered stay of investigation. Challenging the same, the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was numbered as SLP (Crl.) No.3281 of 2020. By an order dated 01.10.2020 the Apex Court passed the following order :

"We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for both parties that they are not aware of the next date of hearing.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court should expedite the hearing of the Criminal Petition No.1719 of 2020. We request the High Court to decide the criminal petition next week."

5. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, the matter was listed before me on 16.10.2020.

6. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that even accepting the allegations in the First Information Report to be true, ingredients constituting offences under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 120B I.P.C., Section 3(1)(g),(2)(Va) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 and Section 7 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 are not made out.

7. He would submit that the allegations in the report are directed against one Brahmananda Reddy (A1) with whom the informant had some disputes over his land in Duggirala Mandal and the same does not pertain to lands in Thullur Mandal, where the petitioner worked as Tahsildar. He would further contend that nowhere in the First Report it is alleged that the petitioner has induced or deceived the informant to part with his property or that he has intentionally or by force dispossessed the informant from his property or that the petitioner has intimidated or threatened the informant directly. He would further submit that the allegations in the report are silent as to even a single particular transaction. As ingredients constituting the said offences are not made out, contend that continuation of investigation against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia which should contain all the details, more so, when it is given by an illiterate person, who was working in the office of Brahmananda Reddy (A1). According to him, the investigation is still at inception and even the Police were 7 not able to collect and place all the information, in view of the stay granted by the High Court within a month of registration of crime. He further submits that about five crimes vide Crime Nos.204 of 2020, 216 of 2020, 217 of 2020 and 218 of 2020 of Thullur Police Station and Crime No.15 of 2020 of CID Police Station are already registered against the petitioner and the same are being investigated into. He would submit that though the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of those crimes as well, but, this Hon'ble Court only protected the petitioner from his arrest and never stayed the investigation. He would further plead that though the survey numbers of the lands are not mentioned in the F.I.R., but, the lands forming part of the villages and the persons who purchased the lands at the instance of A1 and the role of the petitioner herein were mentioned in the F.I.R. It is urged that about 260 documents are already registered and 189 documents are pending registration. According to him, the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner and others is that the property, which is sought to be sold, is shown as patta land in the Revenue records by changing the status of the land and thereafter sold the said land to the purchasers at a high price, while forcibly taking those lands/assigned lands from the Harijans, by informing them that they will not get more amount than what is offered by them, if Government takes over their lands. He would further contend that the statement of one, Gummadi Suresh, who also purchased land, would show as to how the petitioner masterminded the entire fraud and how he, along with others, cheated the innocent harijans and took their assigned lands at a throw away prices and thereafter 8 sold them at a higher prices. In fact, according to him, immediately after registering the crime, Police raided the house of the petitioner and incriminating material relating to lands was found in the house, which clearly shows that even after retirement, he was still having the pattadar passbooks and documents, which should have been in the Tahsildar Office. He took me through the statement of L.W.1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in support of his plea

9. Sri H.Prahlad Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, appearing for the Respondent No.2, states that he is adopting the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and he has nothing to add.

10. In Reply, Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, a reading of the entire report indicates that it has two limbs. The first limb relates to the disputes between A1 and the informant, while in the second limb the informant claims to have seen assigned lands belonging to S.Cs. & S.Ts. being purchased by the accused after deceiving them with false information and hiding the real facts. Hence, he would contend that the second limb of the report can only be a source information for registering another crime and the said allegations cannot be investigated in this crime. He would further submit that as the prosecution got registered number of crimes against the petitioner, it will be just and proper if the informant in all the said cases are treated as witnesses in one crime and then investigation can be carried out only in one crime.

11. In Reply, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that though the report is sought to be categorized into two limbs, but, a reading of the entire report would show that it is a continuous one, as it speaks about the transactions witnessed by the informant and the lands of the informant and his villagers being taken away by deception for a paltry amount.

12. The question as to whether this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code can quash the first information report itself, is integrally and inexorably intertwined with the jurisdiction and power of the police officer to investigate into commission of a cognizable case.

13. In Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana 1 the Apex Court examined the scope of the inherent power of the High Court in interfering with the investigation of an offence by the police. In the said case an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing the first information report registered against the petitioners therein under Sections 442 and 452 I.P.C. on filing of the First Information Report by the University. The High Court quashed the same at the instance of the accused. On appeal by the University, the Supreme Court held as under :

"It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any Court in pursuance of the F.I.R. It ought 1 1977CriLJ1900 10 to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases."

14. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 2 the Apex Court examined the scope of the inherent power of the High Court in interfering with the investigation of an offence by the police and laid down the following rule:

"The sum and substance of the above deliberation results to a conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the Court are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. Indeed, a noticeable feature of the scheme under Chapter XIV of the Code is a Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of the police investigation but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the police how that investigation is to be conducted. But if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution.

15. In Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. V. Biological E. Ltd. 3 the Apex Court held as follows :

"Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather a rule and the case for 2 [1990] 3 SCR 259 3 (2000) 3 SCC 269 11 quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of F.I.R., the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the Court on perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise upto the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount.

Needless to record however and it being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint.

... ... ... ...

7. Time and again this Court has been pointing out that the bushmen of FIR or a complaint in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions (vide State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 CriLJ 527] and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [1999 CriLJ 1833]."

16. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo 4 the Apex Court held as follows :

"While exercising the powers under the Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be 4 (2005) 13 SCC 540 12 exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.

However, the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. But no hard and fast rule as regards cases in which such power can be exercised can be laid down."

17. From the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above it is very much pellucid that the High Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings and in particular, the First Information Report, unless the allegations contained in the report, even if taken at its face value to be correct in their entirety, disclose no cognizable offence. It has also been held by the Apex Court that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. Such power should not be to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It has also been held that investigation of an offence is exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code. Apart from the 13 above, the Apex Court in Kurukshetra University's case (supra) as well as in Saroj Kumar Sahoo's case (supra) held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only in rarest of rare cases. Keeping in view the above principles of law laid down in the judgments referred to above, I shall now proceed further with the matter.

Point No.1 - As to whether the involvement of the petitioner can be investigated into in this crime :

18. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that when the First Information Report given by the informant is separable into two limbs and when the informant is not aggrieved by the contents of the second limb of the report, the Police ought to have registered another crime and investigated into the matter. In other words, his plea is that the contents in the later portion of the F.I.R. have to be taken as source information and then a separate crime is required to be registered and investigated, meaning thereby that the Police cannot investigate into the role of the petitioner in this crime.

19. The same is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor contending that F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia which should contain all the details and it is also not a substantive piece of evidence. According to him, a reading of the report as a whole, would indicate that the informant is also aggrieved by the acts of the petitioner, which is clearly indicated in the last portion of the report and as such it is in continuation of the first limb. Hence, pleads that there is nothing wrong in police investigating into the 14 matter. He would further submit that in view of Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C. the Police Officer has no other option except to investigate into the matter, when commission of cognizable offence is brought to his notice.

20. In order to appreciate the same, it was useful to refer to Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C. :

Section 154 of the Code mandates that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. A copy of such information as recorded under Sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. Any aggrieved person by a refusal, on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information relating to the commission of cognizable offence may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned and if the information discloses a commission of a cognizable offence, the Superintendent of Police shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him and such police officer shall have all the powers of an officer-in-

charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

Section 156 of the Code deals with the Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case and it reads that (1) Any officer-in-

charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, 15 investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII;

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate; (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.

21. In the instant case, F.I.R. came to be lodged, which, according to the informant discloses commission of cognizable offence, but, as stated earlier the objection of the petitioner is that even if the later part of the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence, the same cannot be investigated into this crime, as the informant is not aggrieved thereto and a separate crime has to be registered in respect of those acts. From the argument, advanced, it reveals that the allegations made in the later part can be investigated only after registering another crime, provided, the allegations therein disclose commission of cognizable offence. If investigation can be done in respect of the allegations in the second part of the complaint by registering another crime, if it discloses commission of cognizable offences, I see no reason as to how any prejudice is caused if the investigation is carried out in this crime as well.

22. Be that as it may, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in R.S. Nayak v. A.R.Antulay 5 held as under :

(1984) 2 SCC 500 16 "It is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with according to law. Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statue creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision Numerous statutory provisions, can be referred to in support of this legal position such as (i) Sec. 187 A of Sea Customs Act, 1878 (ii) Sec. 97 of Gold Control Act, 1968 (iii) Sec. 6 of Import and Export Control Act, 1947

(iv) Sec. 271 and Sec. 279 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (v) Sec. 61 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973,(vi) Sec. 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 and (vii) Sec. 77 of the Electricity Supply Act.

This list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. While Sec. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits anyone to approach the Magistrate with a complaint, it does not prescribe any qualification the complainant is required to fulfil to be eligible to file a complaint. But where an eligibility criterion for a complainant is contemplated specific provisions have been made such as to be found in Secs. 195 to 199 of the Cr. P. C. These specific provisions clearly indicate that in the absence of any such statutory provision, a locus standi of a complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. In other words, the principle that anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion remains intact unless contra-indicated by a statutory provision. This general principle of nearly universal application is founded on a policy that an offence i.e. an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force (See Sec. 2 (n), Cr. P. C.) is not merely an offence committed in relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against society. The society for its orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the offender."

23. From a perusal of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in R.S.Nayak's case (supra), it is very pellucid that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. It has 17 been held that the concept of locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence and the principle that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion remains intact unless contradicted by any statutory provision. This principle is founded on the policy that an offence is not merely an offence committed in relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence against society. In view of the above, lodging of the report alleging fraud committed against informant by A1 and also by A1 and others against villagers, not only belonging to the village of informant, but also to other villages, including himself, will not debar the Police from investigating into those allegations as well, if the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence.

24. Further, another Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.& Ors.6 has categorically laid down that when once the report discloses commission of cognizable offence, the Police Officer has no other option, but to register a crime and then proceed in accordance with law.

25. In fact the Apex Court in Bhajanlal's case (supra) after an elaborate consideration of the matter and after referring to its various decisions observed as under :

"At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of a Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the 6 (2014) 2 SCC 1 18 investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered Under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157."

In the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the Police should not refuse to record information relating to commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. Of course, the investigation by the officer-in-charge of a police station would only commence if the officer has the reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered Under Section 156 of the Code to investigate. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down by it in State of Bihar v. J.A.C.Saldanha, wherein it is held that "There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department the superintendence over which vests in the State Government..... Once that is completed and the Investigating Officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence Under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end."

26. Ergo, from the above judgments referred to above and provisions of Cr.P.C., it is very pellucid that it is not only the person aggrieved, but also the person unconnected with crime can set the law into motion by bringing to the notice of the Police Officers commission of a cognizable offence. When once an information disclosing commission of cognizable offence is brought to the notice of Police, they have no other option but to enter the same in the book maintained in the Police Station and then proceed further in accordance with law.

27. Hence, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Report has two limbs and that in the second limb of the Report there is nothing against the informant or that he is not aggrieved 19 by the contents of the second limb, but, if the said portion of the report discloses commission of the cognizable offence, nothing prevents or bars the Police from investigating into the matter.

28. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor states, across the bar, that, the informant is a signatory to the agreements entered with S.C. and S.T. farmers and about 260 documents were registered and 189 documents are pending registration. Though this fact is not averred in the counter, but he submits that since the investigation is stayed, they are not in a position to collect these documents from the office of Sub-Registrar. Since the informant is also aggrieved with regard to his land and as he is a witness to the transactions which were entered in the office of A1 where he was working, to which he is signatory and as the statement discloses involvement of the petitioner, pleads that there is some continuity in the report. He took me through the said report to show the continuity in the said report.

29. A reading of the report reveals that though in the earlier paragraphs, the informant disclosed as to how he was made to part with his property by A1 and his son and also as to how he was cheated, but, when he started working as an agent in the office of A1, which is at Mangalagiri, has seen farmers - Harijans coming to the office of the first accused and later on the lands of these villagers were sold to third persons, whose names are mentioned in the report. These acts were done with the help and connivance of revenue officials, including the petitioner, by changing the status of the land in revenue records.

30. In the last lines of the report, it is mentioned as under :

"Naa venuka chala mandi pedda manushulu vunnaru, vaari dwara meeku entho kontha dabbulu ippinche yerpatu chesthanu ani maaku maaya maatalu cheppi, maa bhoomulanu vaari perla meeda badili cheinchukunnaru."

31. From the above, it can be said prima facie that the informant, who is an eyewitness, was also aggrieved due to land transactions in the village. The word 'maa bhoomulanu' referred to in the last few lines of the report, if taken at its face value, may include the lands of the petitioner as well. Therefore, at this stage, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be brushed aside. Viewed from any angle, lodging of the report by the informant, cannot be found fault with.

32. The next issue would be as to whether averments in the F.I.R. disclose commission of cognizable offence. Point No.2 - As to whether ingredients constituting the offences alleged are made out in the F.I.R. or whether the allegations in report disclose commission of cognizable offences by the petitioner :

In order to appreciate the same, it would be necessary to repeat the contents of F.I.R. and 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant for better appreciation.

A perusal of the First Information Report shows that the informant, while working in the office of A1, noticed Harijans of the villages in the capital area coming to the office of A1 where they were induced to part with their lands and the petitioner, along with 21 other officials, conspired in getting the assigned lands to the land pooling scheme adopted by the Government, after selling them at a higher price. It was informed to the villagers that if the lands are taken away by the Government for the development of capital region, they will not get anything as compensation. It is also averred that A1 is having links with officials in position and that he would manage to see that some compensation is paid to them.

At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the statement of the informant recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 3.3.2020, which is in continuation of the earlier statement dated 27.2.2020. A reading of the said statement shows names of the persons, who indulged in purchase of assigned lands from S.C. Community people in various villages of Amaravathi capital region, either in their names, or in the names of their relatives or benamis.

The said statement also shows that A1, along with others, managed the officials in the Sub-Registrar's Office and got executed sale deeds in the names of relatives/benamis. The then Tahsildar, Thullur - petitioner herein, by abusing his official position, conspired with the above mentioned persons and with others, caused them pecuniary advantage by getting the assigned lands systematically transferred to others. It is further stated in the statement that in furtherance of conspiracy, the then Sub- Registrar, Registrar Office, Mangalagiri Sri Gopal, wrongfully accommodated the sale deed documents for registration of assigned lands, which are against the revenue rules. It also discloses that the then Sub-Registrar, Mangalagiri, wrote letters to the then Tahsildar, Mangalagiri - petitioner, for remarks. The 22 petitioner connived with the said persons, who purchased assigned lands and suppressed the true facts to the Sub-Registrar, Mangalagiri with regard to category of the lands. As part of criminal conspiracy, the petitioner is alleged to have acted to the tunes of the above persons, who wrongfully purchased assigned lands, which are prohibited from registration. Further, the averments in the report show that A1 made the farmers of various villages, belonging to S.C. community, believe that if A.P. Government takes their assigned lands in the land pooling, no compensation will be paid and instead, A1 told them that he knows officials in the Government and will manage to get some compensation to them. Believing the same all the persons belonging to S.C. & S.T. community, including the informant, transferred their respective lands and also the assigned lands in the names of others. When informant asked Brahmananda Reddy about the same, he is alleged to have replied that the amount paid was more than sufficient for Harijans and threatened, if any dispute is raised.

33. Keeping in view the averments in F.I.R. & 161 Cr.P.C. statement, which are referred to above, it is to be seen whether the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 120-B I.P.C., Section 3(1)(g), (2)(Va) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018 and Section 7 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 are prima facie made out. 23

(a) Section 120-B I.P.C. :

34. In so far as criminal conspiracy is concerned, the informant in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement stated that he was associated with A1 in his office; attended the Sub-Registrar's Office and witnessed the acts of the petitioner, Sub-Registrar Gopal and other accused. He also claims to have over heard their version during the assigned land transactions.

The relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant is as under :

"As I was previously associated with Sri Brahmananda Reddy, in his office and also attended to Sub-Registrar Office, Mangalagiri, I witnessed the acts of the above persons and also Tahsildar Sri Sudheer Babu, Sub-Registrar Sri Gopal and I also over heard their conversations during the above assigned land transactions."

35. From the above portion of the statement it prima facie stands established that the informant was an eyewitness to the conspiracy and also heard conversation relating to transfer of assigned lands.

(b) Sections 420 and 506 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. :

"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."

The Section requires - (1) Deception of any person. (2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person 24

(i) to deliver any property to any person; or

(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property;

(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body mind, reputation or property.

36. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another7 to show that allegation in the report do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. It was a case where a private complaint was referred to Police for investigation and the Police, after investigation, filed a charge- sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 471 and 504 I.P.C. Thereafter, the accused filed an application for discharge. The question before the Court was whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offence alleged against the accused. The argument before the Court was the informant and the 1st accused are cousins; their paternal grandfather and maternal grand father were brothers and that they were the owners of plot Nos.1973 and 1971; the said plots were inherited by father of the informant and mother of the 1st accused and that as per family arrangement a portion of the said plots fell to the share of mother of the 1st accused and that portion, which was in possession of her husband, got it mutated in his name and started paying land revenue and after his death, the said land 7 (2009) 8 SCC 751 25 came into the possession of her son, the first accused; that his name was entered in place of his father and he was paying land revenue in regard to the said portion of land and that he bona fidely sold a portion of the land measuring 8 kathas and 13 dhurs to the second accused and got executed the sale deeds. The prosecution opposed the said application contending that the investigation showed that the plot sold was a part of land allotted to grand father of the complainant and the 1st accused did not produce any documents in support of his title and therefore a charge sheet came to be filed for the said offences.

37. Dealing with the said circumstances the court analysed the provisions of law and referring to judgment of G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. 8 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC Indian Ltd.9 held that civil proceedings are sought to be converted into criminal proceedings and accordingly held that no offence is made out. While dealing with Section 420 I.P.C. the Court held that when a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in the said case the complaint is not by the purchaser, but it is made by the co-accused. The complainant in the said case never stated that the accused tried to deceive either by false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission. Under those 8 (2000) 2 SCC 636 9 (2006) 6 SCC 736 26 circumstances, the Court held that ingredients constituting the offence under Section 415 I.P.C. are not made out.

38. In Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra babu and another 10, which is also relied upon by the learned Senior Court for the petitioner, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that matter is essentially having a civil profile and that the ingredients constituting an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. are not made out. It was also a case where initially a report was given, police investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet making allegations against the accused. But, the Court, after carefully examining the contents of the charge-sheet, held that most of the allegations in the said report were directed against A1 and passed order as under :

"We are of the opinion that such allegations do not make out a case of prima facie evidence. Consequently, we have no other option but to quash the proceedings as against the appellants herein i.e., Accused 2 and 3 and Accused 6 to 8. While doing so, however, we make it clear that we express no opinion so far as the allegations made in the said charge-sheet against accused 1 and the other accused persons are concerned. We also make it clear that the observations made herein by us are only with respect to the criminal proceedings and none of these observations shall be construed as an opinion of ours so far as civil liability, if any, is concerned.

Both the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs."

39. The two judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are predominantly cases which are civil in nature. In the first case, the dispute was between cousins with regard to the 10 (2009) 11 SCC 203 27 property. One significant factor, which is to be noted, is that in both the cases, police investigated into the matter and only after filing of charge-sheet, applications came to be filed seeking discharge/quashing on the ground that material collected by the Police during investigation, even taken at its face value, do not constitute offence of cheating. But, situation on hand is totally different. The case is still at its inception.

Further, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant recorded on 3.3.2020 shows that the petitioner-A4 by abusing his official position conspired with purchasers (whose names were mentioned in the F.I.R.) and with others and caused wrongful gain (pecuniary advantage) to them and wrongful loss to the farmers and systematically transferred the assigned lands. It was further stated that the petitioner acted to the tunes of the purchasers and in connivance helped them to acquired prohibited assigned lands, Government lands and transferred them illegally with the help and aid of Sub-Registrar in contravention of A.P. Act, 1977. It will be useful to extract the relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, which is as under :

"The then Tahsildar, Thullur Sri Anne Sudheer Babu by abusing his official position, conspired with the above mentioned persons and with others, caused them pecuniary advantage and thereby the assigned lands which are meant for S.C. community people were systematically been transferred. In furtherance of conspiracy, the then Sub-Registrar, Registrar Office, Mangalagiri Sri Gopal wrongfully accommodated the sale deed documents for registration of assigned lands, which are against to the prevailing rules. Then the then Sub-Registrar, Mangalagiri wrote letters to the then Tahsildar, Mangalagiri Sri Sudheer Babu for remarks. The Tahsildar, Sudheer babu connived with the said persons who 28 purchased Assigned lands and by suppressing the true facts to the Sub-Registrar, Mangalagiri on category of assigned lands. As part of criminal conspiracy, the then Tahsildar Sudheer Babu acted to the tunes of the above persons who wrongfully purchased assigned lands, which are prohibited from registration. Further, Sri Sudheer Babu made efforts to accommodate the above persons to acquire the prohibited assigned lands and other type of Government lands transferred illegally in the name of their relatives/binamis."

40. In order to appreciate as to whether the said act constitutes an offence of cheating it would be useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 11, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that when the complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realised later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear, such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities. It would be useful to refer to the relevant para in the said judgment, which is as under :

"The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in discerning whether there was commission of offence or not. The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that the respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realized later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear. He also mentioned that the respondent after receiving the goods had sold them to others and still he did not pay the money. Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities."

41. Ergo, as stated in the report, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy the Harijans were made to believe that if the lands are 11 (1999) 3 SCC 259 29 taken for the development of capital, they will not get any amount as compensation and thereby induced them to part with their assigned lands. Believing the statements made, these innocent Harijans parted with their assigned lands for paltry amount. Later on, as stated by learned Public Prosecutor, the status of the lands were changed in the revenue records; sold at higher rate and then included in land pooling system, thereby causing wrongful loss to the illiterate harijan farmers of the capital region. Ergo, it is too premature to say that there was no dishonest intention to cheat. In fact, the role of the petitioner, who is A4 in the present crime, is very much evident from the manner in which the assigned lands were included in the land pooling scheme of the Government. Had the Harijan farmers were not induced with the deceptive words in pursuant to the conspiracy, namely, that, they will not get any money, if the Government takes over their lands and that the accused will manage to get some compensation to them, if they part with their lands, they would not have allowed their assigned lands to go for a song. All the accused have caused damage and harm to the property of the villagers who had assigned lands in the capital region, thereby causing wrongful gain to them and wrongful loss to the farmers. Ergo, the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 415 I.P.C. punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. are prima facie made out against the petitioner, more so, having regard to the allegation of conspiracy.

42. In so far as the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. is concerned, the earlier part of the F.I.R. refers to how A1 threatened the informant, while dealing with his land and also when he demanded for return of money and documents. However, in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant, it has been stated that by deception Scheduled Caste people were managed to attend the Sub Registrar's Office and were forced to execute sale deeds. The act of conspiracy between the purchasers and the petitioner in getting the deeds executed by force is evident in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

It will be useful to extract the relevant portion of the said statement, which is as under :

"I state that similar to Sri Brahmananda Reddy, the following are the persons who also indulged in purchase of assigned lands with a dishonest and fraudulent intention from people of S.C. Community in various villages of Amaravathi capital region either in their names, or in the name of their relatives, binamis etc., at throw away price, under exploitation by cheating them. Gummadi Suresh of Vijayawada, Kolli Sivaram of Vijayawada, Nannapaneni Sitarama Raju of Vijayawada, Nannapaneni Krishna Murthy of Vijayawada, Nannapaneni Lakshmi Narayana of Kankipadu, Krishna District, Kudaravalli Venkata Narasaiah of Vijayawada, Yaganti Srikanth of Vijayawada, Balusu Srinivasa Rao of Yedida, East Godavari District, now at Vijayawada, Nimmagadda Santha Kumari of Nizamabad, T.Venkata Satyanarayana of Kothaguda, Cyberabad purchased assigned lands from the poor S.C. people, by deceiving them, they were managed to attend to the Sub-Registrar's Office, Mangalagiri and forced them to execute Sale deed documents in the name of their relatives/binamis."

43. The truth or otherwise of these allegations can only be gone into after the entire investigation is over and at this stage it cannot 31 be said that no offence is made out, having regard to the allegation of conspiracy spoken to by L.W.1.

(d) Offence under Section 7 of Act, 1977 :

Section 7 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, reads as under :

"7. Penalty:- (1) Whoever acquires any assigned land in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. [Provided that any person who has voluntarily disclosed and surrendered the assigned land in his possession or discloses and surrenders the assigned land in his possession within 90 days from the commencement of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Act, 2006 shall be exempted from Prosecution.] (2) Whoever opposes or impedes the District Collector or any person authorised, in taking possession of any assigned land under this Act shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.

[(2A) Any Officer, violating the provisions under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.] (3) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section, except with the previous sanction of the District Collector."

44. Section 3 (2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act postulate that no landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise. Section 3 (3) of the Act states that any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void. 32

45. The Act postulates that once there is violation of the provisions of the Act, the land vests with the Government. In order to avoid the same, the petitioner, along with others, adopted a process of showing these lands as patta lands, sell them at higher rate and then transfer them into land pooling system. Though all the material with regard to showing these lands as patta lands are not placed on record, as the investigating agency could not collect material in view of the stay granted by this Court, the learned Public Prosecutor pleads that such material has seen the light in other five crimes registered against the petitioner. Therefore, it is very pellucid that acts of the petitioner cannot escape, at this stage, of his culpability under the penal provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Though an objection has been raised in the grounds that in view of Section 7 of the Act, the investigation cannot go on, except with the previous sanction of the District Collector, but, it is to be noted that the bar, if any, is for the Court to take cognizance of the offence punishable under this Section, but, definitely the said provision is silent with regard to the powers of the Police Officer to investigate into the offence. Ergo, it would be improper to stall the investigation on that score at this stage.

(e) Offences punishable under Section 3(1)(g),(2)(Va) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA Amendment) Act, 2018.

In order to appreciate as to whether an offence under this Section is made out, it would be appropriate to extract the said provisions, which reads as under :

3.Punishmnets for offences of atrocities :-- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--

(g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights, including forest rights, over any land or premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or takes away the produce therefrom shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (f) and this clause, the expression "wrongfully" includes--

(A) against the person's will;

(B) without the person's consent;

(C) with the person's consent, where such consent has been obtained by putting the person, or any other person in whom the person is interested in fear of death or of hurt; or (D) fabricating records of such land;

(2) Whoever, not being a member of a scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--

(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine."

46. A plain reading of Section 3(1)(g) of the Act would reveal that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe, dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises, or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights against his will, without the person's consent or with the person's consent where such consent has been obtained by putting the fear of death or hurt or fabricating records of such land, would be committing an offence under this Section.

47. Section (2)(va) of the Act deals with the situation where any person, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled 34 Tribe, commits any offence against the person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such person.

48. As referred to earlier, the averments in the report show that members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community were sought to be dispossessed from their lands, at the instance of A1 and others by making them to part with their property; thereafter making them to attend the Sub-Registrar's Office at Mangalagiri and forcing them to execute sale deeds in the names of purchasers, their relatives and benamis. The ground on which they were forced to part with their land was that, if the Government takes over their land for development of capital area, they will not get any money and what is given now is more than what they deserve. The later portion of the report and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant shows that accused connived and conspired, grabbed the lands belonging to S.Cs. & S.Ts. people, paid huge bribes to the petitioner, the then Tahsildar, Thullur and some officials of the revenue department in Mangalagiri and Tadikonda, got the assigned lands into land pooling system, which could have been done only after changing the status of land in the revenue record. Further, the statement of the informant goes to show that one Rahaman of Guntur and Varre Rajasekhar of Venkatapalem Village acted as middlemen and compelled the S.C. community people to sell their lands in conspiracy with all the accused. The petitioner along with others are alleged to have played a key role in getting the assigned lands of S.Cs. & S.Ts. people being converted and included in the land 35 pooling. The manner in which S.Cs. & S.Ts. were dispossessed shows the consent has been obtained not only by deceiving them, but also by putting them in some form of fear and by fabricating the revenue records, thereby, prima facie, constituting offence under Section 3(1)(g) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Amendment Act, 2018.

49. In so far as Section 3(2) (Va) is concerned, it is very much evident that the accused were aware that the persons, whose lands are being taken, belong to S.Cs. & S.Ts. community and knowing that the property was an assigned land given to them for their benefit, deceived and made them sell their property. Hence, prima facie, I am of the view that, at this stage, with the material available, it is difficult to say that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner.

50. At this stage, one another circumstance which requires to be noted and which assumes lot of significance is that after registering the present crime i.e., crime No.14 of 2020, the Inspector of Police, along with others, searched the house of the petitioner, which is situated in flat bearing No.201, River View Residency, Opp. Vijayawada Club, Karakatta Road, Tadepalli Municipality. The said raid was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses. As observed by me in the earlier paragraphs, apart from gold and other ornaments, a bunch of papers were recovered. Though some of the documents relate to the petitioner and his son, but, Item No.9 of the search list refers to pattadar passbooks and other land related documents running into 23 sheets. These sheets formed part of the case diary. It is 36 the case of the State that these pattadar passbooks and documents do not relate to the petitioner and these documents, which should have been in the office of the Tahsildar, are in his house, though he retired long back. In the counter it has been specifically stated that these are land documents, which are required to be in the custody of, either the owner or should be in the office of Tahsildar concerned, but, instead, they are in the house of the petitioner. This circumstance also requires further probe as to the culpability of the petitioner in the land dealings of the said region.

51. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that allegations in the report are vague, as there is no reference even to a single transaction, leave alone mentioning the survey numbers, it is to be noted here that this is only a First Information Report setting the law into motion. It is not an encyclopedia, as held by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments to contain all the details of the transactions. At the same time, it cannot also be said that the report is very vague, since it refers to farmers from various villages visiting the office of A1 and the forward caste people (names mentioned in F.I.R.) from different areas purchasing the assigned land from the Harijans, at the behest of A1, and the petitioner being instrumental in getting the lands included in land pooling scheme of the Government, though they are assigned lands.

The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that as the prosecution got registered number of crimes against the 37 petitioner, it will be just and proper if the informant in all the said cases be treated as witnesses in one crime and then investigation be carried out in one crime.

52. The request of the petitioner of clubbing all the crimes and treating the informants in all the cases as witnesses depends upon various circumstances, namely, as to whether the accused in all the cases are one and the same, nature of allegations made etc. Since the investigation is at a very initial stage; only one witness being examined in this crime and as there is no material with regard to all the F.I.Rs. registered, it may not be proper to deal with the request of the petitioner at this stage, more so, when such a prayer is not sought for in this criminal petition.

53. One other ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the entire allegations in the report are directed against one Brahmananda Reddy (A1) with whom the informant had some disputes over land in Duggirala Mandal. The same does not pertain to lands in Thullur Mandal where the petitioner worked as Tahsildar. But, the informant, in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement states that when he went to Duggirala Police Station, Guntur District, his complaint was not entertained, hence, he approached CID, Mangalagiri and lodged the report. Be that as it may, the informant herein worked in the office of A1 and he is an eyewitness to transactions entered into with respect of lands falling in Thullur Mandal. He narrates how the assigned lands belonging to S.Cs. & S.Ts. people were systematically transferred and then made part of land pooling scheme.

54. Therefore, the allegations made disclose commission of cognizable offence, I am of the view that the same requires investigation. The net result of the criminal conspiracy in a case of this nature will come out only after thorough investigation by the police into the matter. For this reason, the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that only in rarest of rare cases and in exceptional circumstances the courts should interfere with the investigation and that the investigation cannot be thwarted or stalled at the inception.

55. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of the Court that criminal petitions seeking quashing of investigation in respect of other crimes registered against the petitioner came to be filed, but, this Hon'ble Court refused to stay the investigation. It is needless to mention that if the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less and if the Police intend to arrest the petitioner (if not already made) the Police are to follow the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another12.

56. Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner; which, in my view prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences, I feel that it is not a fit case to stifle the investigation, which is at its nascent stage. Hence, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.

2014 (2) ALT (Crl.) 457 SC 39 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Date : 21.10.2020 skmr

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati