HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3349 OF 2002 DATE:09-07-2010 BETWEEN Mir Saaduddin Ali Khan & Another …Petitioners AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3349 OF 2002 ORDER: Petitioners who are accused in C.C.No.43 of 2002 pending on the file of XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hydreabad invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on 5.9.2001 at about 18.50 hours police apprehended the petitioner, and whereas, the F.I.R. was registered at 22.15 hours, and therefore, the same cannot be treated as an F.I.R. In the absence of registration of a crime, police cannot arrest the petitioner. He further contends that the crime itself was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by L.W.7-Sankar Yadav, Sub-Inspector of Police, Santhoshnagar Police Station, and therefore, he cannot investigate into the crime and hence, the charge sheet is liable to be set aside. I do not find any merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that on receipt of credible information that the petitioners were in possession of blue film video cassette and were waiting for customer to deliver it near Kanaka Durga Temple, police constable apprehended the petitioners, brought to the police station and on the written report by L.W.7, a case was registered and they were produced before the Magistrate concerned. In view of the same, the registration of a crime is not necessary to apprehend the accused when they were apprehended while committing the offence. It is now fairly well settled that the investigation by the same officer who lodged the F.I.R. is not vitiated. The Apex Court State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti- Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, T.N. v. V.Jayapaul [(2004) 5 SCC 223] set aside the order of the High Court in quashing the proceedings on the ground that the investigation officer who lodged the F.I.R. cannot investigate into the crime. It was categorically held that the investigation by the same officer, who lodged the F.I.R. is not vitiated and the same cannot be quashed. In that view of the matter, I see no ground to quash the impugned proceedings. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 09, 2010 Tsr.