HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.10090 AND 10458 OF 2009 Date: 29-09-2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10090 OF 2009 Between: Varkala Mallesh @ Varakala Ravi Kiran. --- Petitioner. And The State of A. P., Through SHO, Chandur P.S., Nalgonda District, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad and Another. --- Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10458 OF 2009 Between: Varkala Mallesh @ Varakala Ravi Kiran. --- Petitioner. And The State of A. P., Through SHO, Chandur P.S., Nalgonda District, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad and Another. --- Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.10090 AND 10458 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner v. Mallesh alias Varakala Ravi Kiran is stated to be now doing journalism course. He is accused of offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. read with Section 511 I.P.C. in Crime No.38 of 2004 and Crime No.1 of 2005 of Chandur police station, Nalgonda district. Crime No.38 of 2004 is relating to attempt of committing theft during night in a bank premises. Crime No.1 of 2005 is again a property offence in which there was theft of gold items etc., from the premises of Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS). Previously, the police filed final report in Crime No.38 of 2004 referring the case as ‘undetected.’ Subsequently, after getting the clues, the police reopened the case and took up further investigation. Grievance of the petitioner is that the police apprehended two other culprits who are juveniles and on the basis of their confessions, the petitioner was implicated in these two cases as A-1. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection) Act, 2000, the police are not empowered to record confessional statements of juveniles who are in conflict with law and that therefore in the absence of any legal and admissible material, the police cannot implicate the petitionr/A-1 as an accused person in these two crimes and that the police are also not competent to make investigation under that enactment. There cannot be any dispute about factum of the two crimes, which took place in a bank and in a PACS. The question is as to who committed those offences and whether A-1 was among the persons who committed those offences. Simply because one piece of clue collected by the police during investigation is offended by law, it cannot be said that the entire investigation is liable to be quashed. Investigation of these two cases is pending. Incase, material already collected by the police is in any way contrary to law, then the Magistrate or the Juvenile Justice Board as the case maybe may not look into that part of evidence while disposing of a case pending before it or him as and when the charge sheet is filed. That will not clothe the petitioner with any right to seek quashing of investigation proceedings in these two crimes as against himself. The police or the authorities concerned may collect valuable legal material during subsequent investigation or enquiry. This Court cannot prevent further investigation or enquiry into these two crimes and quash F.I.R. in these two crimes insofar as the petitioner is concerned at its threshold. 2. In the result, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: 29-09-2010. DSH