THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6152 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the order, dated 12.08.2008, in C.C.No.157 of 2008 in Crime No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompet. As seen from the case record, the accused gave a statement on 01.05.2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompet, Srikakulam District, that he was arrested on 30.03.2008. On the basis of the said statement, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue memo, dated 07.07.2008, to Kanchili Police Station to furnish particulars of the movement of the police personnel and other relevant documents. Accordingly, the Sub-Inspector of Police i.e., the 2nd respondent herein filed xerox copy of General Diary dated 31.03.2008 and Sentry Relief Book dated 31.03.2008 with an explanation dated 10.07.2008. In the said explanation, it was submitted that inadvertently the date of arrest was noted as 30.03.2008 instead of 31.03.2008 at 7.40 p.m. and the accused was brought to P.S. Kanchili at 8.15 p.m. and kept in the lockup till 8.45 p.m. Having not satisfied with the said explanation of the police officials, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and issued notices to the petitioners herein. Being aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.157 of 2008 in Crime No.21 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistate, Sompet, Srikakulam District. A cursory verification of the documents, in particular, the Sentry Relief Book dated 31.03.2008, General Diary dated 31.03.2008 and explanation dated 10.07.2008, inadvertently the date of arrest was shown as 30.03.2008 instead of 31.03.2008. It is evident that the alleged offence took place on 30.03.2008 at about 4.00 p.m. and FIR was registered at 7.40 p.m. The remand report reveals that the accused i.e., the 2nd respondent herein was arrested on 31.03.2008. The Weekly Diary for the period from 30.03.2008 to 05.04.2008 of the 1st petitioner herein discloses that on 31.03.2008 at 5.30 p.m., a copy of the FIR in Crime No.21 of 2008 was received and that the accused was arrested at 6.30 p.m. and sent for remand. As seen from the docket order of the Court below, the accused was produced on 01.04.2008. The alleged offence is said to have committed at 4.00 p.m. on 30.03.2008 and that the F.I.R. was registered at 7.40 p.m. Normally, the arrest of the accused will be effected after registering the F.I.R. Thereafter, he will be produced before the concerned Magistrate for remand. As seen from the investigation file, the accused was arrested on 31.03.2008 and thereafter he was sent to judicial custody. The documentary evidence in this case clearly reveals that after the accused was arrested, he was produced before the Magistrate within permissible period. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the production of the accused before the concerned Magistrate in this case for judicial custody cannot be termed as violation of the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the explanation of the official clearly reveals that it is a typographical error of the case inadvertently committed by the computer operator. Admittedly, the accused in this crime was arrested by the police. If really the accused is aggrieved that he was detained illegally beyond 24 years from the date of his arrest, he could have as well pleaded the same before the learned Magistrate when he was produced by the police. This is a suo motu proceedings initiated by the Committal court on flimsy grounds without verifying the record, much less with the alleged typographical error inadvertently committed by the concerned. Having received the explanation, the trial Court ought to have verified the records to find out the truth or otherwise of the explanation before issuing notices to the concerned. Therefore, the documentary evidence clearly reads that noting the date as 30.03.2008 is only a typographical error and, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against the petitioner in my view is without any prima facie material and justification, but abuse of power. Further, this is a case where the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and due to granting of stay in this criminal petition, the entire investigation was stalled. Thus, the impugned order issued by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.157 of 2008 in Crime No.21 of 2008 against the petitioners herein is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the police concerned are directed to expedite the investigation as per law. ____________________ JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO 15.04.2011 v v