Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kanthi Rana Tata Ips vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6640, 6702, 6734, 6802 and 6934 of
2024
COMMON ORDER:
1. The Criminal Petition No.6640 of 2024, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the petitioner/A.3 - Sri Kanthi Rana Tata, I.P.S., IGP, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D), 467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C. and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Sri S.Sriram, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy and Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, the 2 learned counsels for respondent No.2 submitted arguments. The counters are filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2.
3. The Criminal Petition No.6702 of 2024, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the petitioner/A.5 - Sri M.Satyanarayana, Inspector of Police, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D), 467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C. and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. Sri Vinodh Kumar Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Sri Aneel Kumar Dasari, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri A.Sai Rohit and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments. Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy and Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsels for respondent No.2 submitted arguments. The counters are filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3
5. The Criminal Petition No 6734 of 2024, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the petitioner/A.6 - Sri Vishal Gunni, I.P.S., D.I.G., seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D), 467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C. and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
6. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Sri P.Raj Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri A.Sai Rohit and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments and counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.1/State.
7. The Criminal Petition No 6802 of 2024, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the petitioner/A.4 - Sri K.Hanumantha Rao, D.S.P., seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of 4 Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D), 467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C. and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
8. Sri V.Pattabhi, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Sri K.L.N. Swamy, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri A.Sai Rohit and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments and counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
9. The Criminal Petition No 6934 of 2024, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by the petitioner/A.7 - Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, Advocate seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D), 467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C. and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 5
10. Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted arguments and cited legal authorities. Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri A.Sai Rohit and Sri Neelothpal Ganji learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments and counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.1.
11. Here we are concerned with Cr.No.469 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. It has a prequel in Cr.No.90 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. The said Cr.No.90 of 2024 was allegedly set up to arm twist Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani to withdraw Cr.No. 764 of 2023 of Bandra Kurla Police Station, Mumbai.
12. In this Cr.No.469 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam police station of NTR district there are 7 accused. A1 Sri Kukkala Vidya Sagar was arrested on 20.09.2024 and was remanded to judicial custody. His regular bail petition in Crl.P.No.8385 of 2024 was heard and disposed of by this court by an order dated 09.12.2024 whereunder he was granted bail.
6
13. A2 in the present crime is stated to be the former Director General of police. He is not one of the petitioners herein. Four of the petitioners herein are Police officers i.e., A3/ Sri Kanthi Rana Tata, IPS, IGP, A4/ Sri K.Hanumantharao, ACP, A5/ M.Satyanarayana, Inspector of Police and A6/ Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS, DIG. One of the petitioners herein is Sri I.Venkateswarlu who is a practicing Advocate. They pray for prearrest bail.
14. It is a matter of importance that investigation into crimes is conducted fairly, efficiently and in accordance with the law. Indian police face various challenges and criticisms regarding their crime investigation and methods they adopt. There have been cases of torture, custodial violence, human rights abuses which include arbitrary arrest and detention and investigative irregularities such as falsification of evidence, coercive confessions and bias and prejudice. According to the State, the present case depicts registration of a false case as FIR, arbitrary arrest of innocents and falsification of evidence and coercive investigative methods.
15. Between Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani and Sri Kukkala Venkata Rama Vidya Sagar, there has been acquaintance which goes back to for a decade and a half and 7 more. Between them there were allegations and counter allegations revolving around sexual overtures and monetary transactions. Relations got strained. It was in such circumstances that Sri K.Vidyasagar lodged a written information pursuant to which FIR.No.90 of 2024 at Ibrahimpatnam police station was registered on 02.02.2024 for various offences. The said case was registered as against Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani as A1 and her mother as A2 and her father as A3 and her brother as A4. A1 to A3 therein live in Mumbai. A4 therein lives in Dubai.
16. Investigation in Cr.No.90 of 2024 commenced and many legal events took place and they could be summarized as mentioned below:
S.No Date Event
1. 30.01.2024 K.Hanumantha Rao/A.4/Assistant
Commissioner of Police was
transferred as Sub Divisional Police
Officer, Kakinada.
2. 01.02.2024 Three flight tickets were booked to
police team from Vijayawada to
Mumbai.
3. 02.02.2024 Inspector of Ibrahimpatnam registered
a case in Crime No. 90 of 2024. Nine
flight tickets were booked from
Hyderabad to Mumbai by the
8
investigation team of Crime No.90 of
2024.
4. 03.02.2024 A1, A2 and A3 in Crime No.90 of 2024 were arrested.
5. 04.02.2024 All three accused in Crime No.90 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station were produced before learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and they were remanded to judicial custody.
6. 05.02.2024 SHO, Ibrahimptanam filed a petition before learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for police custody of all the three accused in Crime No.90 of 2024 for a period of 5 days vide Crl.M.P. No.225 of 2024.
7. 09.02.2024 Crl.M.P. No.225 of 2024 was allowed for police custody for a period of 5 days i.e., 10.02.2024 to 15.02.2024 for interrogation in the presence of advocate of the accused.
8. 14.02.2024 After the completion of interrogation all the 3 accused were produced by Investigation Officer before learned IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and the court enquired the accused about their stay during the police custody.
9. 26.02.2024 A1 to A3 filed first bail petition under section 437 of Cr.P.C vide C.F.No.708.
9
10. 08.03.2024 The Investigating Officer in Crime No.90 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam police station, to proceed further with the investigation addressed Joint District Registrar, Mumbai sub-urban, with a request to furnish the details of the purchaser of the alleged false document bearing No.80AA714164 (non judicial stamp paper).
11. 12.03.2024 A1 to A3 were granted conditional bail in Crl.M.P. No. 353 of 2024.
12. 22.03.2024 A1 to A3 in Crime No.90 of 2024 filed a petition vide Crl.M.P. No. 74 of 2024 in Criminal Petition No. 353 of 2024 for modification of bail conditions.
13. 08.04.2024 Court of XII Additional District and Session Judge - cum - VI Additional Metropolitan session judge Vijayawada modified the bail conditions.
14. 22.04.2024 A1 filed Quash petition in Crl.P.No.2732 of 2024 before this court to quash and stay all the proceedings in Crime No.90 of 2024.
15. 05.09.2024 Kadambari Jethwani (A1 in Cr.No. 90 of 2024) filed a complaint to Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada.
16. 13.09.2024 Kadambari Jethwani (A1 in Cr.No. 90 of 2024) filed another complaint before Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station and that was registered as Crime No.469 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station.
10
17. 14.09.2024 The Investigating Officer in Crime No.469 of 2024 recorded statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C of Kadambari Jethwani as LW.1, Narender Kumar Jethwani as LW.2 and Smt. Asha Narendra Kumar Jethwani as LW.3.
18 23.09.2024 Investigating Officer filed Remand Report against A1 in Crime No.469 of 2024.
19. 09.10.2024 Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh transferred both Crimes i.e., Crime No.90 of 2024 and Crime No.469 of 2024 to Crime Investigation Department (CID).
17. It is thereafter on written information dated 13.09.2024 of Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani, the present Cr.No.469 of 2024 was registered.
18. According to prosecution, in the present crime, the accused have committed offences under sections 193, 195, 211, 218, 220, 354D, 467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166A, 167, 342, 120B read with 34 IPC.
11
19. Opposing the petitions, the principal submissions of learned Advocate General are that Cr.No.90 of 2024 is a false case. From the material collected so far, it emerged that there was high level conspiracy among top brass. Much before registration of the crime, the accused herein gathered at Chief Minister's Office and flight tickets were purchased for police to go to Mumbai. Those police officers who were already transferred to other stations were secured for the purpose of this case. That the FIR was registered without making necessary preliminary enquiries and that over and above the requirements of a case a large contingent of police party was deputed to Mumbai. Needed discretion was never exercised about the arrest. After arrest, the accused were not properly appraised of the grounds of their arrest. Sri M.Satyanarayana, the Inspector of Police foisted this false case and he did not have due regard to the facts and circumstances. A4/ Sri K. Hanumantha Rao, who was ACP being the immediate supervisory officer over the investigation failed to act in accordance with the law and there was biased investigation and he was in collusion with other accused. He in fact was posted to Kakinada as SDPO but he came to Vijayawada and was closely involved and supervised the interrogation without there being any 12 orders to that affect. When the accused were still in the custody of the police, the police pressurized Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani demanding her to take back the case she had filed in Mumbai. Sri Kanthi Rana Tata IPS failed to properly supervise the investigation and acted hastily. He cautiously did not give written instructions and failed to consider the case thoroughly but deputed team of officers to affect arrest of the accused who are in a different state. That resulted in illegal and unjustified arrest of Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani. It was at his instructions, flight tickets were booked much earlier to the registration of the crime itself. Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS who was the then Deputy Commissioner of Police failed to ensure that the information was thoroughly examined and basic investigation was carried out. Without doing that he had given instructions to proceed with arrest of the accused. It is also alleged that without any written instructions, without any foreign passports obtained from his superior officers, he proceeded to Mumbai. He failed to give opportunity to the arrestees to offer their explanations and allowed his team to affect high handed arrest. It is further argued that the whole act of investigation on part of these accused was carried out within a few hours of registration of FIR while there 13 was no appropriate documentary or material evidence. As against Sri I.Venkateswarlu, the learned Advocate, it is alleged that he was part of the conspiring officers and was constantly advising them and guiding them for commission of these illegal acts. Learned Advocate General argued that in cases of police brutality a different standard is required and bail cannot be granted and cited a ruling of this court in R.Vijaya Paul V. State of Andhra Pradesh1. It is further argued that custodial interrogation of these accused is required to unearth the conspiracy. Any release of these petitioners may result in tampering with witnesses. That the investigation is yet to be completed and at this stage, prearrest bail may not be granted.
20. On behalf of R2/ Victim/ Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani, serious objections are raised about implicating her in a false case and embarking upon false investigation. When the police party arrested the accused, they did not show their identity cards, and they constantly harassed her to share her passwords of phones so as to gain control over those mobile phones which contain relevant evidence concerning Mumbai case which the present accused/ police intended to destroy. She was constantly 1 Crl.P.No.5293 of 2024, order dated 24.09.2024 14 harassed to withdraw Mumbai case. The acts of the present accused caused immense agony to victims and they were unreasonably shown in poor light. They never had regard to the age, occupations, gender, health concerns of the arrestees. In such cases, anticipatory bail cannot be granted and cited Pratibha Manchanda V. State of Haryana2.
21. As against the case of the prosecution, the broad grounds urged on behalf of the accused and very strongly argued by the learned senior counsels and counsels are on the following lines.
• On receiving a written information of facts disclosing cognizable offences, the law mandates the Station House Officer to register FIR. No pre-enquiry is contemplated. Therefore, the allegations that FIR was registered in haste cannot be sustained and cited Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of UP3.
• That the entire investigation was carried out duly following all the procedural norms.
2 (2023) 8 SCC 181 3 AIR 2014 SC 187 15 • The rights of the accused have always been respected and all the necessary things were provided to the arrestees. • Appropriate search warrants were obtained from the courts and foreign passports were obtained from the superior officers.
• After reaching Mumbai, the police team requested the Mumbai Police to render requisite legal assistance which was done accordingly. When the arrests were made, even those police officers were present. Searches were conducted and material objects were seized and necessary panchnamas were made.
• Transit permission from courts in Mumbai was obtained • Arrested accused were subjected to appropriate medical examinations and they were punctually produced before the learned Magistrate • After hearing on both sides, the learned Magistrate remanded the accused to judicial custody 16 • Duly making an application for police custody for the purpose of investigation cannot be found fault with • After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate granted police custody • All throughout, the accused were assisted by their competent learned counsels belonging to Mumbai and this place • Bail applications were moved by the accused and after due hearing, they were granted • Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani had filed a petition to quash Cr.No.90 of 2024 • All through the above-mentioned proceedings, Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani did not make any allegation against any police atrocity or any custodial violence • This is a very belated FIR. If really it is not a false case, she would have disclosed it and lodged her complaint way back 17 in February, 2024 itself after FIR.No.90 of 2024 was registered • The argument of high level conspiracy is imaginary. Though, it is alleged that many big people are involved in Mumbai case so far, they are not made accused in the present Cr.No.469 of 2024. Therefore, the conspiracy alleged by the State is fictitious.
• Police doing their own duty and doing it quickly is now found fault with and that cannot be countenanced. • The police officers in these petitions were suspended and they have been ordered to stay within the limits of stations specified in those orders and they have been duly complying with them. Despite the orders of this court directing these petitioners to join investigation, the State has so far never called them for investigative purposes. That makes it clear that no custodial interrogation is required. They are not flight risk. The case at hand falls within the parameters of grant of anticipatory bail as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the 18 celebrated ruling Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of Punjab 4.
• These police officers served for long years and they served with distinction and were credited with medals and commendations.
• The version of the State in this crime is in a way its professional judgment as to what ought or ought not to be done by police officers in discharging their duties. At any rate, the acts alleged against the police cannot be termed as commission of offences.
• Arguing on behalf of the Advocate who is made an accused, it is stated that by virtue of the profession an Advocate renders advice to anyone who approaches him. Police are entitled to seek legal help from any legal talent. This professional consultations cannot be termed as conspiracy and cited R.Sarala V. T.S.Velu5. 4 (1980) 2 SCC 565 5 (2000) 4 SCC 459 19
22. All the learned Senior Counsels contended that the very registration of F.I.R. and investigation that was taken up pursuant to it are all legally flawed. On the written information of accused in Crime No.90 of 2024 the police ought not to have registered the present F.I.R. in Crime No.469 of 2024 since the same is barred by law. Learned Senior Counsels for petitioners also contended that there cannot be multiple F.I.Rs. on the facts and in the present case such error was committed by the State and cited T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala6. Further, learned Senior Counsels take support from Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Abdul Rehman v. K.M.Anees-ul-Haq7. The purport of the argument is that it is only the Court which entertained Crime No.90 of 2024 that court alone is entitled to file a complaint for prosecution of the accused in the present crime.
23. The response from the State, as argued by the learned Advocate General, is that registration of F.I.R. and the investigation taken up upon it are all legally valid. It is further argued, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was considered 6 (2001) 6 SCC 181 7 (2011) 10 SCC 696 20 by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah8. As per the ratio in the said ruling, the proceedings of the present nature are valid.
24. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State strongly contended that Crime No.90 of 2024 and Crime No.469 of 2024 are to be considered as complaint and counter complaint and they are maintainable.
25. After considering the profound submissions made on both sides and the statute and the precedent cited at the bar and after considering the facts available on record in this crime, the following aspects are to be stated:
26. T.T.Antony's case cited for the petitioners was considered and clarified in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash9 cited by the learned Advocate General. In Upkar Singh's case, briefly stated, the fact situation was that an incident took place on 20.05.1995. Based on a complaint received, police registered F.I.R. for the offences under Sections 452 and 307 I.P.C. Referring to the same incident, the other party lodged a complaint with learned Magistrate which was referred to police upon which F.I.R. was 8 (2005) 4 SCC 370 9 (2004) 13 SCC 292 21 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. Thus, registration of two F.I.Rs. about the same crime incident fell for consideration before their Lordships. After analyzing the law and facts their Lordships held that those two F.I.Rs. are in the nature of complaint and counter complaint and they are maintainable. Explaining about the principle laid down in T.T.Antony's case, their Lordships said that after a complaint was registered against the accused concerning an incident any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused concerning the same incident cannot be considered for registration of another case.
27. In the case at hand, in Crime No.90 of 2024, among other allegations, one of the allegation made against Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani was that she had got prepared a false and forged fabricated document, namely, an agreement for sale of immovable property to the effect that Sri Kukkala Vidya Sagar agreed to sell that immovable property to her. Now that Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani in her complaint which was registered as Crime No.469 of 2024 states that she did not fabricate any such document and it was all a story and such 22 document was planted into her bag by the police when they arrested her.
28. The said agreement for sale, undisputedly, was subjected to investigation and forensic reports were sought for. Steps were taken by the police as to when stamp papers for preparation of such document were procured. Assuming for a while that the said document is not a genuine document, it is in such cases where a forged and fabricated document prepared outside the Court was produced in the Court the ratio in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case operates. Explaining the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, their Lordships said that if a document after being produced into Court is tampered with then the bar operates and only the Court where such document was pending or a Court superior to it was entitled to complain and initiate prosecution. In all other cases where documents were fabricated outside the Court and thereafter they were filed into the Court, the aggrieved party was entitled to initiate prosecution and the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not operate.
23
29. The present case is not limited to that agreement for sale alone. According to the State, the entire case set up in F.I.R.No.90 of 2024 is a false case. For this purpose, false charge of offence was made with the intent to injure Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani. For this, evidence was prepared in this regard and using such false evidence the police intend to procure conviction unreasonably. It is for that purpose Sections 193, 195 and 211 I.P.C. are alleged against the present petitioners. Thus, the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that a false case is set up in Crime No.90 of 2024 and therefore, they registered Crime No.469 of 2024 and the petitioners are not entitled for bail. It is here one must see the relevant portion of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure which reads:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.--
(1) No Court shall take cognizance--
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or 24 of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) ....................
(iii) ..................."
Except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
30. From what is extracted above, it is relevant to see the purport of "such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court." The real meaning of any proceeding in any Court requires an elaboration. The word proceeding in the above provision is used in a wider sense. It is not confined to proceedings that come into existence only after a learned Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence. It includes a proceeding held by a Magistrate on receipt of an investigating officer's report made under Section 167(1) Cr.P.C. 25 which is covered by the provision proceeding mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. where a person makes a false report to the police against certain persons resulting in they being arrested and being remanded to custody and leading to an application for bail being made by them, the remand proceedings and the bail proceedings are connected with the false report made by the person and the offence committed by him by making it. Then it must be held to be an offence committed in relation to those proceedings. As the proceedings are related to the offence in the manner mentioned above, the offence must be said to have been committed in relation to them. Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is therefore applicable and no cognizance of the offence can be taken without a complaint by the Magistrate. A complaint by a private person cannot lead to prosecution for such offences. This question at one point of time arose before their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.L.Sethi v. R.P.Kapur10. However, their Lordships in the light of the case available therein did not choose to decide it and left it open. Subsequently, similar question came up before their Lordships. After considering the entire catena of precedent, their Lordships were pleased to 10 AIR 1967 SC 528 26 emphatically laid down the law in Abdul Rehman's case cited above. That was a case where on a complaint, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 406 read with 34 I.P.C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused arraigned therein applied for anticipatory bail and the same was granted by a learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter the accused therein filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 211 I.P.C. and other provisions of Indian Penal Code contending that the F.I.R. registered against him was a false accusation. It was in such circumstances, the complainant in the first registered crime who was arraigned as accused in the second registered crime had raised a question concerning maintainability of the second F.I.R. and argued the law based on Section 195 Cr.P.C. Answering it their Lordships held that the accused in the first crime having moved the learned Sessions Judge praying for anticipatory bail and having been granted the prayer of anticipatory bail there existed proceedings before that Court. Thereafter, at the behest of the said accused on the allegation of false complaint the second crime emerged. Thus, the second crime is in connection with the proceedings taken up before the Sessions Court. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is clearly 27 attracted. It was further recorded that any offence punishable under Section 211 I.P.C. could be taken cognizance of only at the instance of the Court in relation to whose proceedings the same was committed. In the case at hand, this Court in the earlier paragraphs detailed the facts and legal events concerning Crime No.90 of 2024. Pursuant to registration of Crime No.90 of 2024 accused were arrested and a competent Magistrate passed a remand order, thereafter a police custody order and thereafter a bail order. Thus, they are all proceedings before that Court. What is alleged in Crime No.90 of 2024 is to be stated as a false case to frame an innocent then that being an offence effecting public justice, it is only for that Court or any other Court as specified in Section 195 Cr.P.C. to initiate a complaint and prosecute the accused. Therefore, registering Crime No.469 of 2024 at the behest of accused in Crime No.90 of 2024 suffers from serious legal flaw. It can never be disputed that where the criminal justice machinery is moved in a wrong way that is an eminent ground to grant the plea of pre-arrest bail.
31. On considering the entire record and rival submissions, it is clear that nearly 23 witnesses were examined and investigation progressed for nearly four months. Availability of petitioners and 28 their social roots stand undisputed. It is not anybody's case that any one of the petitioners has any criminal antecedents. The legal flaws have already been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore, any further discussion on several other aspects argued and legal authorities cited need no mention. In these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have made out their case for prearrest bail. The observations made in this order are meant to decide these petitions and they have no bearing for any other proceedings in the subject matter crime.
32. In the result, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed in the following terms:
1. The petitioners shall join investigation and in the event of arrest, they shall be enlarged on bail on each executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer concerned.
2. The petitioners shall inform in advance to the concerned investigating officers about their travel details if any. 29
3. The petitioners shall always make themselves available for investigation as and when required.
4. They shall not interact or influence the witnesses.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 07.01.2025 Dvs 30 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6640, 6702, 6734, 6802 and 6934 of 2024 Date: 07.01.2025 Dvs