THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7755 of 2009 DATED:23.09.2009 Between: Cheetirala Praveen Kumar and another .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by P.S.Kushaiguda, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7755 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the matter is being disposed of, at the stage of admission. The crime was registered on a private complaint alleging committal of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 379, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the second respondent. The police investigated into it and ultimately filed a charge sheet only in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and not for all the offences for which the crime was registered. The grievance of the petitioners is that the offences for which the charge sheet was filed are non-cognizable which could not have been competently investigated into by the police without obtaining the necessary orders from the concerned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and what could not be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly, by mentioning cognizable offences in the First Information Report in spite of non-existence. The facts and circumstances of the present case show that the second respondent appeared to have earlier initiated criminal proceedings in Cr.No.40 of 2003 in which a final report was given not in support of the allegations made. It is also alleged that the first petitioner and his father were acquitted in C.C.No.32 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Chirala filed in pursuance of Cr.No.57 of 2003 initiated by the second respondent. It is true that such background may create a doubt on the dependability and credibility of the second respondent. But any such background cannot by itself be sufficient to presume that the conclusions of the statutory investigating agency after independent investigation in this case are liable to be disbelieved even ex facie. The fact that the investigating agency did not prosecute accused Nos.1 to 3 for all the offences attributed to them by the second respondent in the complaint may be indicative of the dispassionate manner in which the investigation is conducted, drawing prima facie conclusions only in respect of matters that can be acted upon on the evidence collected during the investigation. It is also true that offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code fall within the mischief of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But when the crime was registered for cognizable offences, which the police have power to investigate without any formal orders from a Magistrate and the investigation ultimately discloses probable existence of non- cognizable offences only, it is well settled by precedential law that in such cases, the police need not again revert back to obtain an order of a Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but can straight away file a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the competent Court. While the claims of innocence of the petitioners involve questions of fact which cannot be probed into in depth in these summary proceedings, the technical grounds on which the further proceedings are sought to be quashed do not appear available to the petitioners and hence, the Criminal Petition has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 23rd September 2009 KH