THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.135 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in Crime No.61 of 2008 of Police Station Holagunda of Kurnool District. 2. The petitioner/ accused No.1 is said to be a Police Constable and he is said to have been involved in a crime under Sections 146, 323, 324, 307, 509 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complaint was registered initially against the petitioner and subsequently, the Inspector of Police sent a report to the Superintendent of Police to exclude the petitioner being charged for the offence on the ground that in the 164 Cr.P.C., statement instead of mentioning the name of M.Venkatesh, the witness has stated B.Venkatesh and therefore, he is not the same person, who has involved in the crime and subsequently, the Superintendent of Police has directed the Circle Inspector of Police to enquire into the case and after detailed enquiry, a report is said to have been filed, where-under the Circle Inspector of Police found that accused No.1 was not at the scene of offence and he was taking treatment in Ananthapur District. Therefore, his presence is not there. The Superintendent of Police was not satisfied with the reports and directed the accused No.2 to be charged for the offence. The above direction of the Superintendent of Police is being questioned. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Superintendent of Police has no jurisdiction or power to direct an accused to be charged or not to be charged and it is for the Investigating Officer only. It is to be noted that initially, the name of accused No.1 was mentioned as Venkatesh, who is said to be a Police Constable. Whether he is M.Venkatesh or B.Venkatesh is irrelevant when the identity is to be established. 164 Cr.P.C., statement, which is very cryptic about showing that one B.Venkatesh has participated, does not exclude the original complaint, which was given against the petitioner. If the Investigating Officer has done identification proceedings, it is a different matter. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police has no power to direct charge of a particular accused is concerned, it does not hold good since he is also relying on the report submitted by the Circle Inspector of Police on the directions of the Superintendent of Police, which is favourable to him. Therefore, from the circumstances available on record, the name of accused No.1 is in the First Information Report and the identity could only be established in public Court and the credibility and acceptance is to be done by the Court. Mere vague 164 Cr.P.C., statement, which is not a substantial one and the report, which was found not acceptable by the Superintendent of Police in his supervisory capacity as a controller of crime and the charging of the crimes in the District, the contention of the petitioner for quashing of the First Information Report does not arise at all and therefore, there are no merits in the petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:03-11-2011 INL