Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Whereas, the relief claimed in W.P.No.142656 of 2020 is as follows:

".... To issue writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the Respondents in transfer of investigation in Crime No.73 of 2016 of Ramapuram Police Station, YSR Kadapa District to CID for causing out further investigation after the charge sheet is filed in S.C.No.96/2018 and S.C.No.100/2019 are pending on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, YSR Kadapa District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, unconstitutional, unreasonable and direct the respondents to for bear from doing so and pass such other order .....

Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool narrated the facts of S.C.No.96 of 2018 and S.C.No.100 of 2019 pending on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty, based on Crime No.73 of 2016 registered against the accused. The allegations relating to the pending litigation needs no further consideration in the present writ petitions. Hence, those contentions need not be reiterated in the present writ petitions to avoid prolixity in the judgment.

The specific contention of the respondents is that, on receipt of representation from the defacto complainant, the Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri has entrusted Crime No.73 of 2016 to C.I.D, A.P, vide proceedings Rc.No.3224/C-2/2020 dated 13.07.2020, for further investigation. Thereupon, vide Memo C.No.4628/C32/ C.I.D/2020 dated 15.07.2020, the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D, AP, Mangalagiri issued consequential instructions to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool, to submit preliminary enquiry report within fifteen days there from. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool took up investigation and based on the proceedings and memo vide C.No.23/C-2/DCRB-KDP/2020 dated 16.07.2020 of Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, collected C.D file from the Inspector of Police, LR AIR 1980 SC 326 9 MSM,J WP Nos.14229 & 14265 of 2020 Palli Circle, YSR Kadapa District. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool, filed a requisition before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty informing about continuation of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, took up investigation and re-examined the defacto complainant, wherein the defacto complainant stated the names of Accused Nos. 7 to 10 and further stated that he could not disclose those names, since Accused No.10 threatened with dire consequences. During the course of further investigation, Deputy Superintendent Of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool re- examined the witnesses i.e. LWs. 2 to 10 wherein, they all corroborated the version of L.W.1 - defacto complainant. During the course of further examination, the Investigating Officer/Deputy Superintendent Of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool, examined LWs.11 to 17 on 18.07.2020. Hence, further investigation of C.I.D is permitted and that the contention of the petitioner that the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C only be carried on by the officer-in-charge of the police station, Ramapuram Police Station, only is not tenable. Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool, further highlighted the powers of C.I.D Police, Mangalagiri as per Standing Orders 33(1) and 35(5) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual to contend that C.I.D as a police station for the entire State, can register a case suo moto and investigate into it, therefore entrusting the investigation to senior executive officer, who is officer-in-charge of the C.I.D Police, who according to Section 154(1) Cr.P.C takes action on the complaint received by him and basing on the F.I.R registered by the Senior Executive Officer under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C would be taken up by any investigating officer of C.I.D, authorized by Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D to that effect. As such, the action of Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool, in this regard is not illegal 10 MSM,J WP Nos.14229 & 14265 of 2020 or contrary to the provisions of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C, as alleged by the petitioners.

It is specifically contended that, further investigation can be conducted by exercising power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and that too, Standing Order 33(1) and 35(5) of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual permits Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool to conduct further investigation. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool, took up investigation and filed an application before II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa to record the statement of material witness as contemplated under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa has already recorded the statement of L.W.1 - defacto complainant on 17.08.2020, wherein he disclosed involvement of Accused Nos. 7 to 10 in the above crime. Further, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool denied the right of this petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. speedy trial, when delay was caused due to technical reasons, strict adherence of Section 309 Cr.P.C will not afford any ground to allow the present writ petitions and placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Kanhaiya Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand2 and further contended that the writ petitions are filed only to mislead the Court to obtain an order to screen the real culprits in the above crime and therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to allow these writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

During hearing, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner appearing in W.P.No.14229 of 2020 (2009) CRILJ 1016 11 MSM,J WP Nos.14229 & 14265 of 2020 contended that, even according to Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, only officer- in-charge of the police station is competent to conduct further investigation after filing a charge sheet and cognizance was taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Transfer of investigation for conducting further investigation on the request of Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D, Mangalagiri, who is the head of a separate independent Investigating Agency though under the control of State Government is a clear error and contrary to the intention of the legislature in incorporating Section 173(8) Cr.P.C read with the definition of 'officer-in-charge of the police station' under Section 2(o) Cr.P.C. Apart from that, Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D, Mangalagiri addressed a letter suo moto for transfer of investigation, but no averment is made in the counter disclosing the reason which compelled him to address such letter for transfer of investigation in Crime No.73 of 2016 on the file of Ramapuram Police Station, YSR Kadapa District to C.I.D, A.P. In the absence of any explanation, the very addressing letter dated 30.06.2020 by Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D, A.P is nothing but usurping the power of Investigating Agency who conducted investigation in Crime No.73 of 2016, which is the subject matter of S.C.No.96 of 2018 and S.C.No.100 of 2019. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, in Paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed by Deputy Superintendent Of Police, C.I.D, Kurnool, a specific averment is made that "acting upon the representation of the defacto complainant, the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri has entrusted the investigation to the C.I.D, A.P., Mangalagiri vide Rc.No.3224/C-2/2020 dated 13.07.2020, whereby the Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D, Mangalagiri entrusted the investigation to Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Kurnool vide 12 MSM,J WP Nos.14229 & 14265 of 2020 Memo C.No.4628/C32/C.I.D/2020 dated 15.07.2020. He took up investigation and basing on the proceedings and memo vide C.No.23/C-2/DCRB-KDP/2020 dated 16.07.2020 of Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, collected C.D file from the Inspector of Police, LR Palli Circle, YSR Kadapa District.....".