HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5617 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 7/A2 to A8 along with A1 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 306, 203 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1959 ( in short ‘the Act’) in PRC No. 7 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District. 2. A-1, who is not the petitioner herein is stated to be the person responsible and who abetted suicide of the deceased, who is a tribal girl. A-1 and the deceased while pursuing their studies, were residents of Hicks Children Home, Rampachodavaram. It is alleged that A-1 and the Deceased loved each other and developed physical relationship also and that on the fateful day, A1 and the deceased had sexual intercourse in the forest area and that when the deceased asked A1 about their marriage, A1 declined the same for which the deceased became aggrieved and immediately committed suicide by hanging to a tree with her chunny and that after noticing the same, A-1 took her body and threw it in a waterless hill stream. The body was noticed after a few days in a decomposed or mummified state. On report given by Hicks Children Home, the police registered case originally under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and began investigation of the same. A7 is stated to be chief of Hicks Children Home at Pamarru and A2 to A6 and A8 are his close friends and associates. 3. The only allegation made against A2 to A8 is that they influenced parents of the deceased for not identifying the dead body as that of their daughter. After inquest in crime No. 52 of 2007, was altered to Section 306 IPC from Section 174 Cr.P.C. and after subsequent investigation, the police added Section 201 IPC also to that crime against A2 to A8. During investigation, the police arrested A1 to A6. A7 and A8 obtained anticipatory bail. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 203 IPC and Sections 3(2) (V) of the Act against the A1 to A8. 4. It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners/ A2 to A8 that even if allegations mentioned in the charge sheet and supporting documents are taken on their face value, they do not attract section 203 IPC. 5. Section 203 IPC reads as follows: 203: Giving false information respecting an offence committed. – Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 6. No doubt, Section 203 IPC penalizes a person who gave false information in respect of offence, knowing the said information to be false. In this case, none of A2 to A8 gave any information muchless false information either to the police or to any other authorities mcuhless knowing the same to be false. Therefore, Section 203 IPC may not be applicable as against A2 to A8. But, at the same time, it has to be seen whether any other penal provisions of law are applicable as against A2 to A8, on the basis of allegations in the charge sheet and the record appended to it taking them on their face value. 7. As pointed out earlier, the police after initial investigation, changed section of law in the crime from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 306 IPC and thereafter added Section 201 IPC to this crime. But, for reasons best known to the police, they have chosen to file the charge sheet for offences punishable under Section 203 IPC without mentioning section 201 IPC. 8. Section 201 IPC reads as follows: 201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.- whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; 9. It is contended by the senior counsel that even though the allegations against A2 to A8 are taken on their face value, the alleged influence on parents of the deceased was with a view to keep up prestige of Hicks Children Home and not with a view to save the offender or to screen the offender from legal punishment A1 and that A2 to A8 were only interested in their investigation and not in A1. Even though A2 to A8 were interested to preserve good name of the institution, ultimately their alleged influence would lead to keeping the main offender A1 out of reach of punishment in case the dead body is not identified as that of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that no penal provision in the Indian Penal Code is applicable as against A2 to A8. It is a moot point to be decided by the trial court after recording entire evidence of the prosecution in this case. This court is of the opinion that this is not a case where the petitoenrs/A2 to A8 can be let off at its threshold. This court makes it clear that it is not for the police to control the proceedings in the court by way of invoking one penal provision and deleting another penal provision. It is a prerogative of the criminal court, be it a Magistrate or a Sessions Judge, to invoke those penal provisions which are appropriately attracted to facts of that particular case. In the case on hand, the said exercise has to be done by the sessions court during framing of charges after the case is committed to the sessions court. I do not see any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in so far as the petitioners/A2 to A8 are concerned at this stage. 10. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 18-11-2010 Mjl/*