Telangana High Court
Mr. Bollinenikrishnaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 23 December, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.27505 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Mr.Pattabhi Vemulapati, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.L.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Gaddam Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. V.Ragunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.Virosa Sanjana, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
2. This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to transfer of the file and investigation in Crime No.17 of 2024 on the file of the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, to respondent No.3 i.e., the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and to declare the said transfer of investigation is illegal. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the investigation in Crime No.17 of 2024 back to the file of 2 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 respondent No.5 i.e., the Station House Officer, P.S. Raidurgam.
3. As per the complaint dated 08.01.2024 lodged by respondent No.6, respondent No.5-police registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2024 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.) vide Criminal Petition No.616 of 2024 to quash the said proceedings against them in Crime No.17 of 2024.
4. Respondent No.6 filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.1875 of 2024 to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not conducting an effective investigation in Crime No.17 of 2024 as illegal and also for the consequential direction to declare the action of respondent No.5 in not providing police protection to respondent No.6 and her minor daughter in spite of specific representation. Respondent No.6 also sought further direction to constitute 3 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 Special Investigation Team or entrust investigation in the subject crime to CBCID, in view of open reluctance of respondent No.5 with regard to the action on Crime No.17 of 2022. Vide order dated 24.06.2024, this Court dismissed the said Criminal Petition No.616 of 2024 and disposed of W.P.No.1875 of 2024, directing the Investigating Officer to consider certain factual aspects.
5. Thereafter, respondent No.6 got issued legal notice dated 21.08.2024 to third parties i.e., M/s. Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Limited, Secunderabad, and to M/s. Albha Health Care Private Limited, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, to produce birth particulars or records of her two children for the years 2004 and 2006 respectively.
6. Respondent No.5 issued a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. to all the petitioners dated 27.06.2024. They have submitted replies to the same.
7. At the instance of respondent No.6, vide letter dated 10.09.2024, Registrar of Birth and Deaths and Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Begumpet Circle No.30, 4 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 Secunderabad Zone requested the Superintendent, KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, to issue verification report of birth certificate of Mr. Arjun Chowdary, father Mr. Bollineni Krishnaiah, mother Mrs. Bollineni Sujatha etc. Thus, respondent No.6 is harassing petitioner No.1 and trying to ruin the career of petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
8. This Court vide common order dated 24.06.2024, directed the Investigating Officer in the subject crime to consider the certain factual aspects while conducting investigation. Instead of waiting for the outcome of investigation, respondent No.6 gone to social media like facebook etc., by posting messages with pictures which are derogatory. She has also call for a press conference and using influence on the Investigating Officer to transfer the investigation to Hyderabad Commissionerate. She has also got it published in all Telangana Newspapers in daily editions and indulging in hate speeches and inciting the public to hatred and to take an inimical stand against the petitioners. Even then, on the request made by respondent No.5, respondent No.2 transferred the investigation to 5 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 respondent No.3 and ultimately the investigation in the said crime is entrusted to respondent No.4. The said transfer of investigation of the subject crime from respondent No.5 to respondent No.4 is contrary to the common order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and W.P.No.1874 of 2024, procedure laid down under Cr.P.C. and principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Challenging the said transfer, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
9. Mr. Pattabhi Vemulapati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended as follows:
i) Vide common order dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and W.P.No.1875 of 2024, this Court rejected the request made by respondent No.6 to entrust the investigation to SIT or CBCID or to any other independent investigating agency.
ii) This Court also directed the Investigating Officer in Crime No.17 of 2024 on the file of P.S. Raidurgam, to conduct the investigation in a fair and transparent manner.6
KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024
iii) Respondent No.5 can't request respondent No.2 to transfer the investigation to respondent No.3.
iv) Any transfer of an investigation from one police station to other police station without any basis and without following procedure laid down under law is illegal.
v) The investigation cannot be transferred on flimsy grounds.
vi) Conducting fair and transparent investigation is part of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
vii) Without considering the said aspects, on the request made by respondent No.5, respondent No.2 transferred the investigation of the said Crime to respondent No.3. Therefore, the same is illegal. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. 7
KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 State of Kerala 1, Jolly Singh v. The State 2, Raiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat 3 and Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat 4.
10. Both the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Mr.V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 contended as follows:
i) The accused has no stand in the investigation.
ii) The accused cannot challenge the transfer of investigation from one police station to another police station;
iii) Though this Court directed the Investigating Officer in the said crime to conduct investigation on certain aspects, he is not conducting investigation in fair and transparent manner. There are serious allegations against the petitioners herein.
iv) Victim has every right to request the Investigating Officer to transfer the investigation. 1
. (2008) 3 SCC 542 2 . 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1157 3 . (2010) 1 SCC 1 4 . (2008) 8 SCC 300 8 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024
v) Though the said crime was registered on 08.01.2024, the Investigating Officer did not conduct investigation properly.
vi) The Investigating Officer in the said Crime has to obtain information from GHMC authorities and Passport Office, which are within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3. Therefore, there is concurrent jurisdiction.
vii) The petitioners are using influence on the Investigating Officer-respondent No.5 through one Ravi, Nephew of accused No.2.
viii) The petitioners created fabricated documents. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in case of transfer of investigation from respondent No.5 to respondent No.4.
ix) Respondent No.6 approached the Investigating Officer about 100 times with a request to conduct investigation in fair and transparent manner but the Investigating Officer failed to conduct investigation in a fair and transparent manner. Therefore, respondent 9 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 No.6 left with no other option except to request the Investigating Officer and respondent No.2 to transfer the investigation to respondent No.3.
x) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the evidence and on perusal of the same, it was established that the petitioners have forged the hospital documents and obtained birth certificates of the victim children and obtained passport duly submitting the fake birth certificates. The place of offence is GHMC Office and Passport Office, which are located in Hyderabad City.
xi) The investigation has to transfer to respondent No.4, since the place of offence is within the limits of respondent No.3. Therefore, at the request made by the Inspector of Police, P.S.Raidurgam, respondent No.2 transferred the investigation to respondent No.3- the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, who in turn, entrusted the investigation to respondent No.4. They have concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, there is no 10 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 error in transferring the investigation from respondent No.5 to respondent No.4.
They have placed reliance on the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in Mahindra Kumar Narendera v. State 5, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rajesh Gandhi 6, Romila Thapar v. Union of India 7, Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat8 and Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra 9.
11. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that as discussed supra, on the complaint dated 08.01.2024 lodged by respondent No.6, respondent No.5 registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2024 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Perusal of record would reveal that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the said Crime added Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
5 . 2005(79) DRJ 47 6 . (1996) 11 SCC 253 7 . (2018) 10 SCC 753 8 . (201) 4 SCC 626 9 . (2009) 6 SCC 65 11 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024
12. As discussed supra, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 filed writ petition vide W.P.No.1875 of 2024 seeking a direction to the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation in a fair and transparent manner and also sought for a direction to constitute SIT or entrust the investigation to CBCID or to independent Investigating Agency etc.
13. Vide common order dated 24.06.2024, this Court in paragraph No.13 observed that as per complaint dated 08.01.2024, there are certain factual aspects which needs to be investigated by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The same are as follows:
(1) Whether the de-facto complainant is legally wedded wife of accused No.1 or they are in live-in relationship?
(2) Whether the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 got married at Gopalapatnam, Vizag?
(3) Whether accused Nos.2 and 3 adopted the elder daughter of de-facto complainant and accused No.1?12
KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 (4) If adopted, whether it is with the consent of de-facto complainant or not?
(5) The relationship of accused Nos.2 and 3with accused No.1.
(6) Strained relationship with accused No.1 and his first wife as contended by him.
(7) Whether accused No.1 is having any children with his first wife?
(8) Whether accused No.1 has mentioned that he and his first wife are parents of the son of accused No.1 and de facto complainant?
(9) Whether in school records of his son, accused No.1 has mentioned the name of his first wife as mother of son of de-facto complainant?
10. The examination of school records with regard to the said factual aspects.
11. The delay in lodging the complaint, and
12. The knowledge of de-facto complainant with regard to the aforesaid aspects.
14. This Court also directed the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation, strictly in accordance with law considering the aforesaid factual aspects including the delay in lodging the complaint while conducting investigation.
15. Vide proceedings dated 29.08.2024, respondent No.5 informed that during the course of investigation, the 13 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 Investigating Officer i.e., K. Vijay, Sub-Inspector of Police, served notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, who have submitted explanation. A notice dated 01.07.2024 was also served on respondent No.6 under Section 91/160 of Cr.P.C. for providing other witness and details pertaining to the said case. Another notice dated 02.07.2024 was also served on Chirec International School, Kondapur, with a request to furnish bonafide certificate of Vankayalapati Vyshnavi and on the same day, he has received the said bonafide certificate. Therefore, he has verified all the certificates and issued notice holding that there is change of name of the mother of the child etc. There is no change of name of the mother in the passport.
16. It is further stated that while the investigation is under progress, CD file was handed over to Mr. Jagadeshwar, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on transfer of Mr.K. Vijay, Sub-Inspector of Police, to Chowdariguda Police Station for further investigation. Mr.Jagadeeshwar, the Sub-Inspector of Police, verified all the concerned 14 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 documents and basing on the available documentary evidence, added Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC to the existing Sections 420, 417 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and filed a memo to that effect in the trial Court. The petitioners are residing in Hyderabad city i.e, Banjara Hills and Jubilee Hills. They have forged the documents and obtained birth certificates of the children. They have also obtained passports by submitting the fake birth certificates.
17. It is further stated that as per the available evidence, it is clearly established that accused persons have forged the hospital documents and obtained birth certificates of the victim children and obtained passport of the said children by submitting the fake certificates. The place of offence is GHMC office and Passport office.
18. It is further stated while the investigation was under
progress and on 21.08.2024 he has received 4C petition vide Ref.No.1268/4C/Cyb/2024, dated 21.08.2024 of the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate i.e., 15 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 respondent No.2 herein where the complainant submitted a representation with a request to transfer the case to CCS (Central Crime Station), Hyderabad, for further investigation. Therefore, respondent No.5 requested respondent No.2 to transfer the CD file to the CCS (Central Crime Station), Hyderabad, for further investigation on the point of jurisdiction. Thus, basing on the proceedings dated 10.09.2024, the entire original CD file in Crime No.17 of 2024 on the file of respondent No.5 was transferred to the file of respondent No.3 on the point of jurisdiction for further investigation as per law.
19. Vide proceedings dated 13.09.2024, respondent No.3 entrusted the investigation to the Additional Commissioner of Police, CCS (Central Crime Station), Hyderabad. On receipt of the said proceedings, respondent No.4 re- registered the said Crime as Crime No.208 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 467, 468, 471 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. He has recorded the statement of respondent No.6 on 07.10.2024. He has also recorded the statement of one watchman of Apoorva 16 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 Towers on 22.10.2024. He has also addressed a letter dated 07.10.2024 to the Managing Director, KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad, with a request to furnish the birth details of Bollineni Arjun Chowdary. On the request made by him, Registrar of Births and Deaths, Circle-24, Kukatpally, GHMC, furnished details vide proceedings dated 08.10.2024 informing the Investigating Officer that the birth certificate was issued from his office as it was registered before become the GHMC from Kukatpally Municipality presently Remedy Hospital, Balanagar was closed. He has also issued a notice dated 25.10.2024 to the petitioners to appear before him for enquiry. Another notice dated 29.10.2024 was issued to petitioner No.1 with a request to appear for enquiry. He has issued both notices dated 25.10.2024 and 29.10.2024 to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 requesting appearance for enquiry. Challenging the said transfer, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
20. There is no dispute that respondent No.2 has power to transfer the investigation of the said crime to respondent No.3, on the point of jurisdiction. But the said transfer 17 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 cannot be based on flimsy grounds and it is subjected to certain conditions.
21. In Divine Retreat (supra), the Apex Court held that unfettered discretion to transfer the investigation does not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion and act according to one's own choice. The power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition of which that power is granted by the Code itself. The Apex Court further held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in the midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a named Judge. Such communications cannot be converted into suo motu proceedings for setting the law in motion. Neither the accused nor the complainant or informant is entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a crime in which they may be interested. It was further held that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 18 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an Investigating Officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in rarest of the rare cases where a clear case of abuse of power and non- compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code. Even in cases where no action is taken by the police on the information given to them, the informant's remedy lies under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr. P.C., but a Writ Petition in such a case is not to be entertained.
22. In Naresh Kavarchand Khatri (supra), the Apex Court held that transfer ordered without issuing notice to the appellant informant and neither impleading him, considering the fact that Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) 19 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 had waived service on behalf of opponent State, High Court neither assigning any reason while passing the impugned order, nor adverting to the question as to whether it had any jurisdiction to pass such order, etc., is illegal. The Apex Court further held that the police authorities, in terms of Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. exercise a statutory power. The Code of Criminal procedure has conferred power on the statutory authorities to direct transfer of an investigation from one Police Station to another in the event it is found that they do not have any jurisdiction in the matter. The Court should not interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto. If it is found that the investigation has been conducted by an Investigating Officer who did not have any territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the same should be transferred by him to the police station having the requisite jurisdiction. The investigation has to be carried out on the basis of the allegations made. Therefore, the Apex Court found fault with the order of High Court in transferring the investigation from one police station to another police station.
20
KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024
23. In Rasiklal Dalpatram (supra), the Apex Court held that within the jurisdiction of the investigating agency to refrain itself from holding a proper and complete investigation merely upon arriving at a conclusion that the offences had been committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction. The Magistrate would indicate that the major part of the loan transaction had, in fact, taken place in the State of Gujarat and that having regard to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 156 Cr.P.C, the proceedings of the investigation could not be questioned on the ground of jurisdiction of the officer to conduct such investigation. It was open to the learned Magistrate to direct an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C without taking cognizance on the complaint and where an investigation is under taken at the instance of the Magistrate, a police officer empowered under sub-section (1) of Section 156 is bound, except in specific and specially exceptional cases, to conduct such an investigation even if he was of the view that he did not have jurisdiction to investigate the matter. 21
KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024
24. It was further held that a complaint made in a criminal case follows the place where the cause arises, but the distinguishing feature in the instant case is that the stage of taking cognizance was yet to arrive. The investigating agency was required to place the facts elicited during the investigation before the Court in order to enable the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not. Without conducting such an investigation, it was improper on the part of the investigating agency to forward its report with the observation that since the entire cause of action for the alleged offence had purportedly arisen in the city of Mumbai within the State of Maharashtra, the investigation should be transferred to the police station concerned in Mumbai. It was further held that Section 156(3) CrPC contemplates a stage where the learned Magistrate is not convinced as to whether process should issue on the facts disclosed in the complaint. Once the facts are received, it is for the Magistrate to decide his next course of action. 22
KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024
25. In Jolly Singh (supra), High Court of Delhi held that relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rasiklal Dalpatram (supra) and Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana 10, held that on examination of the facts therein held that order of Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on transfer of investigation from P.S. Model Town, Delhi, to P.S. Surajpur, Noida, is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
26. In Mahindra Kumar (supra), High Court of Delhi relying on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State 11 held that the Investigating Officer has no power to forward the case to the Police Station of the area in which the offence appears to have been partly committed. For example, if the kidnapping takes place in area "A", murder takes place in area "B" and the destruction of evidence is in area "C", the FIR can be registered by the Police at any of the three places under Section 178(c) of the Code for the reason that the 10 . (2020) 10 SCC 92 11 . (1999) 8 SCC 728 23 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 Magistrates of all these areas are empowered to take cognizance of the offence under Section 170 and 173 of the Cr.P.C, Investigating Officer in whose area the offence was partly committed and FIR was lodged may for a variety of reasons forward the case to another area, in which also the offence was partly committed, so that further investigations and trial may take place in that area.
27. In Dhinubhai Boghabhai Solanki (supra), referring to Union of India v. W.N.Chadha 12, the Apex Court held that the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence 12 . 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260 24 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In Narender G. Goel (supra), the Apex Court reiterated the said principle.
28. The accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for Court-monitored investigation. Changing the Investigating Agency cannot be dealt with lightly and the Court must exercise that power with circumspection.
29. In Rajesh Gandhi (Supra), the Apex Court held that the decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate, does not attract the principles of natural justice. The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offences he is charged with.
30. Section 175 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS) deals with Police Officer powers to 25 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 investigate cognizable cases, and it is relevant to extract the same:
"175. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.--
(1) Any officer in charge of a police
station may, without the order of a Magistrate,
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 XIV:
Provided that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case.
(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 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
(4) Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public 26 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to--
(a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and
(b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.
31. In the light of the aforesaid principle, there is no dispute that the investigation can be transferred from one police station to another police station on the point of jurisdiction. At the same time, the same cannot be on flimsy or irrelevant ground. It should be transferred on the point of jurisdiction and on assigning specific reasons.
32. As discussed supra, this Court in the common order dated 24.06.20244 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and W.P.No.1875 of 2024 observed certain aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. This Court also directed the Investigating Officer in Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad, to conduct investigation, strictly in accordance with law. 27
KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024
33. While the investigation is in progress, respondent No.6 submitted a representation dated 21.08.2024 to respondent No.2 with a request to transfer the investigation to respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 made an endorsement to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, to verify the investigation and put up the file transfer to CCS, if there is jurisdiction.
34. Respondent No.5, in turn, vide proceedings dated 29.08.2024 informed respondent No.2 that the accused persons forged the hospital documents and obtained the birth certificates of the victim children and their passports obtained. The place of offences i.e., GHMC office and Passport office, are located in Hyderabad city. Therefore, he has requested respondent No.2 to transfer the file to CCS. On receipt of the said report dated 29.08.2024 from respondent No.5, respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 10.09.2024 transferred the investigation to respondent No.3 on the point of jurisdiction.
28
KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024
35. It is relevant to note that in the complaint dated 08.01.2024, respondent No.6 herself stated that she is a resident of Villa No.35A, Lalitha Bloom Field, Khakaguda, Hyderabad, and on receipt of the said complaint only, the Investigating Officer registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2024. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners filed Crl.P.No.616 of 2024. This Court granted stay of all further proceedings in the said Crime including the arrest of the petitioners on 25.01.2024. The matter was referred to Mediation, who could not conduct mediation proceedings. Mediation was unsuccessful. Thereafter, vide common order dated 24.06.2024, this Court disposed of Crl.P.No.616 of 2024, directing the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law and also consider the certain factual aspects mentioned in paragraph No.13 of the said common order.
36. Thereafter, notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioners on 27.06.2024 and they have submitted explanation on 01.07.2024 and 30.07.2024. Instead of waiting for outcome of the investigation and 29 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 cooperating with the Investigating Officer, respondent No.6 has submitted a representation dated 21.08.2024 and also issued a legal notice to respondent No.2 with a request to transfer the investigation. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, respondent No.2 herein made an endorsement to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, to verify the investigation and put up file transfer to CCS, if there is jurisdiction. Thereafter, vide memo dated 28.08.2024, the Investigating Officer filed a memo in the Court before the learned Magistrate adding Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. On the representation dated 21.08.2024, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, issued charge memo dated 28.08.2024 to the Inspector of Police and to the Sub- Inspector of Police, who are Investigating Officers in the said crime, for conducting poor investigation.
37. On receipt of representation dated 21.08.2024 from respondent No.6, respondent No.2 should have verified the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.17 of 2024, instead of making endorsement to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, to verify 30 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 the investigation so far and put up file transfer to CCS, if there is jurisdiction. Without verifying the investigation and without going through the CD file, basing on the representation dated 21.08.2024 of respondent No.6, respondent No.2 requested the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, to put up file transfer. The said endorsement is in violation of procedure laid down under BNSS and principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
38. It is apt to note that on receipt of representation dated 21.08.2024 from respondent No.2, respondent No.2 should have verified the investigation in the subject crime and ascertain the allegations made by respondent No.6 in the said representation dated 21.08.2024. Without verifying and examining the contents and allegations made by respondent No.6 in the representation dated 21.08.2024, without even examining the investigation in the subject crime, respondent No.2 cannot make an endorsement stating to put up file to transfer. The said action of respondent No.2 is illegal, contrary to the 31 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 procedure laid down under BNSS and principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments.
39. Basing on the said endorsement dated 21.08.2024 and intimation received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, respondent No.5 vide proceedings dated 29.08.2024 requested respondent No.2 to transfer the file to respondent No.3.
40. It appears that the investigation was entrusted to respondent No.4, more particularly, to Assistant Commissioner of Police ranked officer, who recorded the statements of respondent No.6 and another person.
41. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that on transfer, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.208 of 2024 pending on the file of respondent No.4, did not conduct any further investigation due to pendency of the present writ petition. In fact, there is no interim order in the present writ petition. Even then, the Investigating Officer did not proceed further. This Court 32 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 also called for the record from the Investigating Officer and perused the same.
42. Thus, the endorsement made by respondent No.2 dated 21.08.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, to put up file transfer, though the transfer is contrary to the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C. or BNSS and also the principle laid down by the Apex court in aforesaid judgments. Without going through the record and without verifying the record, respondent No.2 cannot made endorsement to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, for put up file transfer to CCS, if there is jurisdiction.
43. As discussed supra, there is no dispute that the petitioners being accused can't request this Court to conduct investigation by a particular agency. At the same time, respondent No.6 also can't request respondent No.2 to transfer the file to respondent No.3. It is for the Investigating Officer to take steps to transfer the file on the point of jurisdiction. But in the present case, instead of 33 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 Investigating Officer requesting for transfer on the point of jurisdiction, basing on the endorsement dated 21.08.2024 of respondent No.2 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, and on his request, vide proceedings dated 29.08.2024, respondent No.5 requested respondent No.2 to transfer the file to respondent No.3 on the point of jurisdiction. Thus, the entire procedure adopted by respondent Nos.2 to 5 is in violation of the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C./BNSS and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgments.
44. There is no dispute that the said Crime was registered on 08.01.2024. This Court granted stay of all further proceedings including the arrest vide order dated 25.01.2024 in Crl.P.No.616 of 2024 and the same was vacated on 25.06.2024. Therefore, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.17 of 2024 pending on the file of respondent No.5 ought to have completed the investigation, strictly in accordance with law. However, he has issued notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. to the petitioners on 27.06.2024 and 34 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 the petitioners submitted replies on 07.07.2024 and 30.07.2024 respectively.
45. Respondent No.6 instead of waiting for outcome of the said investigation, submitted a representation dated 27.08.2024 with a request to transfer the file from respondent No.2 to respondent No.3. Charge memos were issued to the Station House Officer, P.S. Raidurgam, and to the Inspector of Police on the ground of conducting poor investigation. Therefore, instead of changing the Investigating Officer, respondent No.2 made an endorsement to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, with a request to put up file transfer and the action of respondent No.2 is illegal.
46. In the light of the said discussion, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the proceedings dated 29.08.2024 of respondent No.5, proceedings dated 10.09.2024 of respondent No.2 and the proceedings dated 13.09.2024 of respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to transfer the file in respect of Crime No.17 of 2024 (new 35 KL,J W.P. No.27505 of 2024 Crime No.208 of 2024) to respondent No.5 for further investigation. Respondent No.5 is at liberty to change the Investigating Officer in the said Crime. The Investigating Officer shall conduct the investigation strictly in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 shall supervise the investigation in the said crime. Both the petitioners and respondent No.6 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
47. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 23rd December, 2024 Note: The Registry is directed to return the file to learned Public Prosecutor under due acknowledgment. (B/O.) YNK