THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5751 of 2008 July 09, 2010 Between: B.Srinivas Goud, S/o.Anjaiah Goud … Petitioner AND The Station House Officer, P.S.Mahabubnagar, represented by The Public Prosecutor And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5751 of 2008 ORDER: The crime was registered being F.I.R. No.55 of 2008 under Sections 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, on 19.3.2008, by II-Town P.S. Mahabubnagar. The basis is statement given by the father of second respondent. Contending that when the alleged offence occurred within the jurisdiction of P.S.Mancherial, registration and investigation of crime by II-Town P.S. Mahabubnagar is contrary to Section 156(1) and 177 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), present petition is filed seeking to quash the crime. Second respondent is son of Vadde Narayana. He was studying VIII class. Father could not bear the expenditure for further studies. Therefore on a request made by petitioner, second respondent was sent as helper on Hitachi vehicle. On 23.2.2008 when the vehicle was engaged in the Railway work, second respondent came into contact with live electrical wire and as a result he suffered burn injuries on the right of the body from shoulders to legs. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner, the Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for second respondent. The dispute is not much with regard to ingredients of offence but it is more about the jurisdiction as disclosed in the statement recorded from Vadde Narayana. It is well settled that when a cognizable offence is reported, any Police Officer in-charge of Police Station has to register the F.I.R. and take up investigation. If by reason of Section 156(1) of Cr.PC, such Police Officer cannot take up investigation, it is his duty to forward the F.I.R. to concerned Police Station (see Satvinder Kaur v State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)[1]. In that view of the matter, on the ground that the II-Town P.S. Mahabubagar registered the crime, the same cannot be quashed. It is for the Police to take further action in accordance with the provisions of Cr.PC. The criminal petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) July 09, 2010 YS [1] AIR 1999 SC 3596