HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6791 OF 2009 DATED.27-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 (For short, ‘A-1’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.2269 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna district registered for offences punishable under Sections 283, 341, 323, 352, 431 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioner is A-1, the respondent No.2 is the complainant in the Criminal Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Complaint. 3. The relevant facts of the case are follows : On 07-08-2007, the private complaint was filed by the complainant before the learned Magistrate and it was forwarded to the Police concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for necessary investigation and report on 15-1-2007, on the basis of which, the case was registered in Crime No.269 of 2007 on their file. In fact, the claim of the complainant in brief is that there is a donka road from Munagacharla village to Takkellapadu with a width of 30 to 450 feet and that is the only way for the villagers of Munagacharla to reach their respective lands and on 24-02-2007, A-1 with the help of A-2 to A-6 in the case had lifted the gravel of the donka to a width of 400 metres and 10 feet depth for his weigh bridge construction, as a result of which, ditches were formed in the donka following which, there has been danger to the children and cattle to go by that donka and all the villagers have been frightening to use it. Further, in fact the complainant and others went and requested the accused to restore the original position of the donka, but A-1 to A-6 did not hear them and on the other hand they beat the complainant and others and also abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences, following which, the complainant gave report to the police. It is the contention of the complainant, that having been influenced by A-1 no action was taken by the police in the matter. Further, the matter was informed to the Mandal Tahsildar, Nandigama, who in turn had addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, Nandigama to take action in that regard. Hence, pleaded that A-1 to A- 6 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. Further, as per the final report sent by the police the accused involved in digging the gravel from the donka which comes under the purview of Section 427 I.P.C. is not cognizable in nature and hence no further action could be taken. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 that without following the procedure contemplated under Section 200 to 203 of Cr.P.C. and without accepting or refusing the final report filed by the police straightaway the Magistrate had taken the case on file and issued notices to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. which therefore is not tenable by reason of which, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State has opposed the petition. 7. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 8. It is very significant to note here that the police filed the final report holding that the case would fall within the purview of Section 427 I.P.C. but as it happened to be a non-cognizable offence, they were not in a position to investigate the case. Further, when the final report was filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. with regard to the alleged offences it was the duty of the concerned Magistrate to accept it or not to accept it passing a speaking order and in case it was not accepted then the complainant got right to file protest petition to take necessary action under Sections 200 to 203 Cr.P.C. and without taking such recourse it was not proper on the part of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case. Further, by virtue of Section 154 Cr.P.C. the police got power to receive information and register cognizable cases. Section 155 Cr.P.C. contemplates information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases : “(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer, the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” 9. Therefore, when it happened to be a non-cognizable case the police got right to conduct necessary investigation subject to the provisions of Section 155 Cr.P.C. There is no order of giving permission to the police to conduct any investigation in the case. Further, Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides for taking complaints and examination of complainants and their witnesses and Section 201 Cr.P.C. provides procedure to be taken by a Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case and Section 202 Cr.P.C. is about 373 postponement of issue of process. Section 203 Cr.P.C. deals with the question of dismissal of the complaint when sufficient material is not there. Further, Section 204 Cr.P.C. deals with the question of issuance of processes when once it is found that necessary material is made out to proceed further with the case. When the final report was filed by the police, the complainant ought to have taken necessary recourse under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. Therefore, under these circumstances, taking cognizance of the case without following the procedure contemplated under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. is not tenable and accordingly the proceedings are liable to be quashed. However, the complainant and the Magistrate are at liberty to proceed with the case as per law, taking all necessary measures. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and further the entire proceedings in Calender Case No.2269 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna district are quashed, subject to the observations made above. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:27-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6791 OF 2009 December, 27, 2011 DSH