THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3184 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Parmala Naga Raju … Petitioner AND 1. The State of A.P. and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3184 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. in Crime No.55 of 2009 of Gadwal Rural Police Station of Mahabubnagar District. From the contents of the complaint noted in Column-12 of printed FIR, it is evident that it is a suo-motu case registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is stated therein that on 16.04.2009 when the Sub-Inspector of Police was discharging his election duty as Striking Force at Jammichedu Village, the petitioner and others came to the polling centre along with contesting candidate of Telugu Desam Party and that they asked the Sub-Inspector to send the contesting candidate of the Congress to outside the Polling Station and entered into argument with the Sub-Inspector of Police and pushed him and obstructed him from discharging his legitimate duties. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that under the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1951 (in short, the Act), the Sub-Inspector of Police/de facto complainant herein works as an election personnel and that Section 131 of the said Act provides for penalty for disorderly conduct in or near polling stations and that since there is a built-in mechanism provided under the said Act, the alleged incident in this case cannot attract Section 353 I.P.C. No doubt, disorderly conduct narrated in Section 131 of the Act may attract liability thereunder, but it cannot rule out applicability of the provisions of Indian Penal Code for the said conduct, in case, the said conduct attracts ingredients of offences under I.P.C. Assuming for a moment that during the course of the said disorderly conduct occurred near the polling stations, a grave offence like murder takes place, then it cannot be contended that liability of the participants in the offence is only under section 131 of the Act and not under the provisions of I.P.C. Liability under Section 131 of the said Act is in addition to and not in derogation of liability under any other general penal law. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Sub-Inspector of Police is the complainant and he registered the case and as per Column-13 of FIR, he is shown as the Investigating Officer and that it is not permissible in law. Suo- motu registration of a case by a police officer when the offence took place in his presence or when he had information about commission of the offence, is not impermissible in law. But, fairness requires that in such a case, the officer who registered the case suo-motu shall not take up investigation of the case and the investigation should be entrusted to another police officer, in this case, the investigation is still pending and the case is not yet charge sheeted. 4. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, but directing entrustment of investigation of this case to another police officer than the police officer who suo-motu registered this crime. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 11.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3184 of 2009 DATED: 11.03.2011 ysk