HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.19394 OF 2002 Dated 15-12-2009 Between: S.Yellamma. ….Petitioner. And: 1. The Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.19394 OF 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been instituted by the mother of a victim, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer, Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad to immediately register a complaint lodged by her and to take up the investigation against one Sri Mahesh son of M.Swamy, resident of Secunderabad. The son of the writ petitioner by name Shekar was employed in Andhra Ispat Ltd., Chandralok Complex, Paradise, Secunderabad as sales person. The said Shekar was alleged to have lent money to his friend Mr. M.Mahesh and said Mahesh has been dragging it’s repayment. There was some conversation between the son of the writ petitioner- Shekar and Mahesh over telephone on 7-7-2002, pursuant to which incident, the writ petitioner had come to know of such transaction. As usual, the son of the writ petitioner attended to his office on 8-7-2002. But, however, towards the end of the day, the said Shekar and Mahesh together left the office and visited the house of one Mr.Kishan who is none other than the brother-in-law of Mr.Mahesh. Later on the writ petitioner has been informed that there is a quarrel between Mr. Mahesh and the said Kishan and when her son Sekhar intervened, he has received certain grave injuries at the hands of Kishan and he latter on succumbed to those injuries. Immediately, Mr.Mahesh has lodged a complaint with the police about the death caused of Mr.Shekar by Mr.Kishan. The police registered a case in Cr.No.207 of 2002 and apprehended the accused-Kishan and also prosecuted him. The learned VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad convicted the accused Balakrishna @ Kishan and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years. The accused has preferred a Criminal Appeal to this Court. while dismissing the said appeal, this Court by its Judgment dated 22-9- 2006 reduced the tenure of imprisonment to four years. However, the writ petitioner appears to have lodged a complaint on 15-7-2002 with the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer, Begumpet, suspecting foul play in the entire matter and suspected the involvement of Sri Mahesh in the crime. Since the local police have not recorded her statement subsequently, and since she has not been informed of the result of the investigation carried out into the complaint lodged by her, the present Writ Petition has been instituted. Though initially, in the Counter affidavit, it has been denied that no such complaint was received from the writ petitioner on 15- 7-2002, but however, corrective measures have been taken pointing out that a complaint was, in fact, received on15-7-2002 and that further investigation was also carried out by the Inspector of Police, Begumpet thereafter. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has drawn my attention to the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in T.T.ANTONY v. STATE OF KERALA ([1]) wherein it was held in paragraph 18 as under: “An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as first information report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nickname suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more formations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the first information report—FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. All other information made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in The station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during investigation the truth is - who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(3) or 173(8)CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.” Based upon this principle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has rightly contended that the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner on 15-7-2002 need not be registered separately and since there is already a cognizable offence, taken up for investigation, a further investigation into the contents of complaint lodged by the wit petitioner herein was carried out. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is right in her submission that the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner could not be registered separately and investigated separately. When the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is perused, it disclosed that the Inspector of Police, Begumpet has carried out further investigation after receiving the complaint from the writ petitioner herein and the same also formed part of the case diary of investigation into the Crime No.207 of 2002, hence, I cannot find fault with the State in this regard. However, it is always open to the writ petitioner to take recourse to section 200 Cr.P.C. if there is adequate material available with her for further investigation to be carried out. In this view of the matter, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed but however, without costs. Before I part with this case, I must express my sincere appreciation of the efforts made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home who has followed up my instructions carefully and collected the entire case record and studied the same carefully. _____________________________________ Justice NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Dated 15-12-2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.19394 OF 2002 Dated 15-12-2009 [1] (2001) 6 SCC 181