THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6909, 6910 and 6911 of 2009 DATED:07.09.2009 Between: Gattu Vamana Rao .. Petitioner And The State, Station House Officer, Karimnagar II Town Police Station, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, Hgih Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6909, 6910 and 6911 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel representing Sri Vattikuti Srimanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent in all the three petitions. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent in the three petitions, as the matters are being disposed of at the stage of admission. Criminal Petition No.6909 of 2009 is for quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.40 of 2008 on the file of the Karimnagar II Town Police Station, which was registered on the report of the second respondent about the missing of her husband since 04.03.2008. On the said report given on 06.03.2008, the crime was registered about missing of the second respondent’s husband and a specific penal provision under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code was incorporated on 10.12.2008. On the further report of the second respondent, about her son approaching the Crime Reporter of TV9 and the petitioner herein admitting kidnapping the husband of the second respondent, in his conversation with the Crime Reporter on mobile phone, the crime was further altered into one under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 02.04.2009 after apprehensions of accused Nos.2 to 5 in the crime and their alleged confession implicating the petitioner also. The petitioner claims, insofar as Cr.No.40 of 2008 is concerned, that his representation to the Superintendent of Police on 20.03.2008, filing W.P.No.11422 of 2008 before the Court and his complaint to the State Human Rights Commission, resulted in his false implication in the crime and that the alleged cell number does not belong to him at all. It is true that the earliest version on which the crime was registered has no indication of the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences and that it was only on 10.12.2008 that some information leading to the implication of the petitioner in the crime has been brought to the notice of the Court. It is true that it was much later the apprehension of accused Nos.2 to 5 is claimed to have led to the implication of the petitioner positively in the crimes through their confessions and there was also further delay since the confessions till the unearth of the dead body on 30.06.2009. It may also be true that the post mortem did not disclose any external injuries, but the same does not ruin the confession of accused Nos.2 to 5, who claimed to have killed the deceased by strangulating him with a towel and also administering sleeping pills mixing in water. There may be circumstances, which may indicate that the police have reason to be aggrieved by the actions of the petitioner in approaching this Court with W.P.Nos.12346, 12360 and 12363 of 2009, which were filed for quashing of the criminal cases against the petitioner. But, it is seen from the order of this Court, dated 24.07.2009 by which it was directed that an officer other than the fifth respondent therein to investigate into three crimes. But, this Court was specific that the said order to change the investigating officer was passed only having regard to the serious allegations made by the petitioner against the fifth respondent therein and the same would not mean that this Court accepted all the allegations made by the petitioner against the fifth respondent therein. The learned Judge specifically observed that to ensure impartiality and to allay the apprehensions of the petitioner, this Court felt it appropriate to change the investigating officer. It may also have to be incidentally noticed that the learned Judge was not pleased to accept the contentions of the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings in the three crimes. It is to be further noted that in W.P.No.23380 of 2008, this Court by way of interim order directed the officials not to interfere with the personal life of the petitioner in any manner without following due process of law and it is further proved that in W.P.No.11422 of 2008, the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, was directed to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner against the Subordinate Police Officer of involving him in false cases. However, either the interim direction or the final order referred to above, did not lead to any conclusion on fact by this Court and though such a background may make the allegations of the petitioner about his false implication not open to outright rejection, still, the circumstances disclosed during investigation into the crime, like the alleged happenings on 10.12.2008 and the alleged confessions of accused Nos.2 to 5 in the crime, cannot be altogether ignored. The statutory investigating agency must be allowed to take the investigation in its logical conclusion on facts to arrive at the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner or any others, the crime which is claimed to have resulted in the homicide of N.Venkateswarlu, the husband of the second respondent. Any expression of opinion in these summary proceedings by admitting to make any deep fact finding enquiry to the prejudice of either party will be beyond the scope of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and notwithstanding the circumstances unfavoruable to either the petitioner or the prosecution, as detailed above, taking recourse to the inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in the rarest of rare cases to have an interim intervention against continuance of the investigation into the serious offences, will not be a step in aid of securing the ends of justice and the request of the petitioner for quashing Cr.No.40 of 2008 cannot, therefore, be acceded. However, when it comes to Cr.No.35 of 2008 on the file of the Karimnagar I Town Police Station, which is the subject matter of Crl.P.No.6910 of 2009, the crime was registered on the report of the second respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, about a threatening SMS received on his mobile from another specified mobile. It was only in the counter-affidavit in W.P.No.12360 of 2009 that it was admitted to connect the petitioner with the mobile phone from which the message was received. Even according to the said counter-affidavit, the petitioner was not the subscriber of the said mobile phone, but one Rajiramma, with whom the petitioner is not stated to have any connection. The petitioner is alleged to have an extra material affair with one Rama Devi, the mother of Manasa, who is admitted to be connected with the SIM Card said to be involved in the flashing of the message to the mobile phone of the Circle Inspector of Police. Even in this case, while it may be open to the Police to continue the investigation as to identify the person who indulged in the culpable conduct of sending the offending message to the Circle Inspector of Police, the petitioner who till now is obviously implicated more on suspicion than on any concrete material, has to be extended some protection in the interests of justice. Consequently, in order to secure the ends of justice, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court should be invoked to the extent of prohibiting the arrest of the petitioner during further investigation into crime, while the petitioner should assist for such further investigation, if it is lawfully required to do so. In view of the strained relationship between the petitioner and the police, even if he were so required to respond to any queries by the investigating officer in such further investigation, it should be done only in the presence of the counsel engaged by the petitioner in order to prevent any apprehensions of use of methods other than those permissible under law during such examination or interrogation. While coming to Cr.No.4 of 2009 on the file of Karimnagar I Town Police Station, which is the subject matter of Crl.P.No.6911 of 2009, the same is registered on the written report of the second respondent herein, dated 06.01.2009 and it was specifically alleged that the second respondent escaped from an attempt to kidnap her and to have reported to the police and she is specifically alleged that the petitioner was present in the front seat of the Car, when she made attempt to escape from the Car. When such a specific allegation is made, statutory investigating agency could not have refused to register the crime against the petitioner also and though it is true that in this case and in the other case in Cr.No.40 of 2008, copies of some news reports are placed on record, but such news reports cannot be the basis for coming to any conclusion in a judicial proceeding. It is also true that the second respondent in Crl.P.No.6911 of 2009, is stated to have reported the matter to the Khammam police also and it is not known as to what happened to such report or what further action has been taken by Khammam police on the same. However, the allegations made by the second respondent cannot be dismissed as totally untenable merely on the ground of delay of about two weeks in reporting the matter to the Karimnagar police and notwithstanding the strained relations between the petitioner and the police at Karimnagar, the serious allegations made specifically by name by the second respondent against the petitioner cannot be the subject matter of quashing on a prima facie consideration of the allegations in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These two investigations have to be, therefore, allowed to proceed in accordance with law without any interim intervention by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the three petitions is apprehensive that the petitioner may be subjected to harassment and indefinite detention and physical violation. But, any such apprehensions cannot by themselves be a ground for interference with the discharge of the statutory duties by the police in the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of these crimes. However, the investigating agency can be believed to act only in accordance with law within the limits of the powers conferred on it by the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force and will not transgress such limits. It can also be believed that the investigating agency shall not indulge in any methods other than permitted by law in examining or interrogating the petitioner or in making further investigation into the crimes. The investigating agency can also be presumed to proceed against the petitioner in case of his arrest in any of these two crimes before the nearest Magistrate as per law within the time permitted. The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, can be requested to ensure such further investigation to be strictly in accordance with law by making a copy of this order to the said official. In the result, all the three Criminal Petitions are dismissed, but, in Cr.No.35 of 2008 on the file of Karimnagar I Town Police Station, the petitioner shall not be arrested during further investigation, while the investigating agency can proceed with the further investigation. If the presence of the petitioner is required during such investigation into Cr.No.35 of 2008 by the statutory investigating agency in accordance with law, the petitioner shall extend all possible and permissible assistance in such further investigation, but any examination or interrogation of the petitioner in Cr.No.35 of 2008 shall be only in the presence of his counsel or if he has no counsel, in the presence of any other person as the petitioner desires. The further investigation into Cr.No.40 of 2008 on the file of Karimnagar II Town Police Station and Cr.No.4 of 2009 on the file of Karimnagar I Town Police Station can proceed in accordance with law but subject to the observations made in this order. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar for bringing the observations made in this order to his notice. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 7th September 2009 KH