HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 19974 OF 2011 . DATED 20th June, 2011 BETWEEN N.Parvathamma …Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 19974 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that on 05.01.2007 at about 1.00 pm while her younger son, aged about five years, was returning from school to home, a TaTa Sumo, being driven by the seventh respondent in rash and negligent manner, it hit the block slab, due to which, the same fell on her son and on account the same, her son suffered severe head injury and fell unconsciously. Immediately the said boy was shifted to Government Hospital, Hindupur and thereafter to Sekhar Hospital, Bangaore for better treatment, whereat the boy was succumbed to injuries on 8.1.2007 at 10.45 pm. It is her further case that the said vehicle belonged to the sixth respondent and the third respondent colluded with him and played fraud in registering the crime. It is also her grievance that the third respondent registered the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (death occurred due to fall of slab on head) instead of registering the case of death on account of rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. It has been averred that the doctors who treated her son clearly opined that it is purely a road accident death. It has been further averred that several persons were present at the time of accident who explained that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver-7th respondent. It has also been averred that despite several representations to the respondent authorities to furnish FIR statement, GD and other details in respect of the case registered, none of them had been furnished. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner lodged a complaint on 8.1.2007 stating that his younger son while returning from Saraswathi Vidya Mandir School on foot on 4.1.2007 at about 1.00 PM, due to fall of slab in front of the house of one Pamsetty Kistappa of Mudireddypalli sustained head injury and unconscious. It is stated that the said boy died on 8.1.2007 while undergoing treatment and death is due to injuries which he sustained because of fall of slab accidentally. Pursuant to the said complaint, a case in crime No.6 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. has been registered on the file of the I Town Police Station, Hindupur, Ananthapur District, and thereafter took up investigation. It is further stated that the inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of his parents, blood relatives, witnesses and three inquest panchayatdars. None of them suspected any suspicion or any foul play with regard to the death of the deceased. The Professor of Forensic Medicine, Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the death is due to ‘COMA’ on account of head injury sustained and issued post mortem certificate on 9.1.2007. It is stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the filing of the final report, the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Hindupur, issued proceedings dated 30.4.2007 to drop the case since no proof of foul play was noticed. While denying the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent- police colluded with the sixth respondent and played fraud in registering the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C, it is stated that pursuant to the contents of the complaint of the husband of the petitioner only, the crime was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and conducted inquest in the presence of the Panchayatdars and blood relatives and thereafter filed final report. It is also stated that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 24.8.2007, the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, provided all the copies pertaining to the case file and the petitioner acknowledged the same. From the above factual matrix, it is axiomatic that the son of the petitioner died due to severe head injury on account of fall of slab accidentally. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the death is due to ‘COMA’ on account of head injury sustained and issued Post Mortem Certificate accordingly on 9.1.2007. When the inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased boy in the presence of his parents, blood relatives, witnesses and inquest panchayatdars, none of them suspected any suspicion or any foul play with regard to death of the deceased boy. Even the contents of the complaint lodged by the husband of the petitioner, i.e. father of the deceased boy discloses that on 4.1.2007 at about 1.00 PM while his younger son, aged about 5 years, returning from Saraswathi Vidya Mandir to home by walk, at the house of one Pamisetty Kistappa, a black slab accidentally fell on his son, due to which his son suffered sever blood injuries and on receiving the information about the said accident, he went there and found his son’s head under the black slab and unconscious. Based on the above contents, the respondents-police registered a case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and took up investigation. Though the petitioner has alleged that her son died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the seventh respondent, nowhere she had stated the particulars of the vehicle which caused the death of her son. Except making bald allegations against the respondents that her son died due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by seventh respondent, no material or poof has been filed to establish her version. The case was registered as per the contents of the complaint given by her husband. Further more, if the petitioner wants to register the case by the police recording that the death of the boy was due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, she has to lead evidence in an appropriate proceedings, to prove the same. It is well established that evidence cannot be led in the remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner is still aggrieved against the action of the respondents in registering the case under Section 174 Cr.P.C, invoking of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy. She, at best, if so advised, can invoke the jurisdiction conferred under the Criminal Procedure Code. I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------------------- ------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 20th June, 2011. Msnro