HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2927 of 2009 ORDER: This petition has been filed U/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the accused in Cr.No. 61 of 2009 of Moghalpura Police Station registered for the offence punishable U/Sec. 306 IPC with a prayer to quash the complaint therein. 2. The facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner is the daughter of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and sister of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5. She was married to K.Uday Mohan Rao on 09-03-2008 according to Hindu Rites and customs and they were blessed with a male child on 07-02-2009. The said Uday Mohan Rao attended the cradle ceremony of his son at the house of the parents of the petitioner No.1, but returned to his parents house without taking food and committed suicide by hanging on the intervening night of 17/18-02-2009. The 1st respondent- K.Srinivasa Rao, the father of the deceased -Uday Mohan Rao, presented a report before the Station House Officer, Moghalpura Police Station on 18-02-2009 at about 8.00 p.m. informing the death of his son. Basing on the said report, the Station House Officer, Moghalpura Police Station registered a casein Cr.No. 23 of 2009 U/Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. and issued FIR. While the above FIR was pending under investigation, the 1st respondent –K.Srinivasa Rao again presented a complaint before the VIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging inter alia that his deceased son committed suicide because of the harassment of A-1 to A5, who are the petitioners herein and thereby they abated his son to commit suicide. For better appreciation I may refer to the relevant portion of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent-complainant, which reads as hereunder: “It is submitted that the diagnostic centre by name Suman Diagnostics was run by A4 in a rented premises at Ram Nagaqr and the Landlord wanted the premises to be vacated four months after the marriage of the deceased with A1 on the ground that the landlord wanted to sell the said premises. At that stage all the accused have brought pressure on the deceased to provide financial assistance in order to purchase the said premises. All the accused indulged in rebuking the deceased when he has resisted to meet their financial demands and as such conduct of the accused in misusing the finances of the deceased has severely hurt him and on one occasion vexed with the conduct of A-1by hanging from the ceiling on 22-09- 2008 and when A-1 raised hue and cry the complainant and his family members have rushed into the room and prevented the said act by the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was expressing before the complainant and his family members regarding the conduct of A1 to A5 in order to gain financially from the deceased and the said conduct is responsible for his attempting to commit suicide on 22-09-2008 and the deceased used to further express that if such conduct of accused continues, he has no alternative except to end his life. It is submitted that the deceased and A-1 were blessed with a son was born on 07-02-2009 and after the birth of the child A1 to A5 started a campaign that everything with belongs to the deceased now belongs to the new born and A1 to A5 invited the family of the complainant for the cradle ceremony of the son of deceased and A1 on 17-02-2009 and accordingly the members of the complainant’s family and the deceased went to the house of parents of A1 for the said function. During the said function the deceased was aloof and was withdrawn during the said function and without the knowledge of the complainant and his other family members, the deceased has returned back to his house without even having dinner on such a auspicious occasion which reflects a strong and immediate provocation for the deceased to take such a step and the reasons for the deceased returning back without having dinner and committing suicide shortly thereafter was not known immediately to the complainant’s family, but after the call details from the cell phone of the deceased bearing No. 9290092189 and the SMS messages received by the deceased disclosed that number of calls were there between the deceased and A1 and SMS messages sent by A1 to the deceased indicate that the deceased has expressed his desire to end his life andA1 is apologetic and requested the deceased not to do anything and one such message reads that her brothers are coming. The events that have happened on 17-02-2009 during the cradle ceremony and the facts disclosed from the cell data of the deceased will clinchingly prove that A1 to A5 of the persons responsible for the deceased to commit suicide and the conduct of A1 to A5 to financially exploit the deceased has driven the deceased to commit suicide as he got vexed with the conduct of A1 to A5 in that regard. It is submitted that, the Moghalpura PS have registered a case in Cr.No. 23/2009 U/s. 174 Cr.P.C. and during the course of inquest all the above facts were brought to the notice of the police including the SMS messages sent by A1 and in spite of the same, the police have not taken any action against the accused and therefore, thorough investigation including interrogation of the accused is necessary in order to prosecute the accused with regard to the offences committed by them.” 3. The learned Magistrate referred the above complaint presented by the 1st respondent to the Station House Officer U/Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and thereupon the Station House Officer, Moghalpura Police Station registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 61 of 2009 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 306 IPC and issued FIR. Hence this criminal petition with the prayer stated supra. 4. Notice to the 1st respondent-defacto complainant came to be ordered on 01-05-2009. The 1st respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-defacto complainant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the registration of two crimes in respect of the same incident is impermissible under law and therefore, the report in Cr.No. 61 of 2009 is required to be quashed. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Majeed V. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and in Anka Pedda Seshaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh[2]. 7. In the decision cited 1st supra, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that Registration of the second crime basing on the private complaint with regard to the incident in respect of which a crime has already been registered is only an irregularity and not illegality and the said irregularity can be corrected by setting aside endorsement of the Magistrate referring the private complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. Para No. 5 of the Judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: “It is true that there cannot be two FIRs and two investigations by two different police officers on the same occurrence. In case the defacato complainant is not satisfied with the manner of registration of her report by the police having regard to sections of law and naming the accused persons therein, then the defacto complainant is not without any remedy. It is for that reason the defacto complainant has approached the Magistrate and filed private complaint before him. In all fairness the defacto complainant should have disclosed about the police registering her report for minor offences and leaving out certain other offenders. If such disclosure was made by the defacto complainant in her private complaint, then the Magistrate would not have referred the private complaint to the police again for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. When already one Fir is pending for investigation with the police and if the defacto complainant is not satisfied about he same and filed private complaint in the lower court disclosing her previous FIR then the lower court should have followed the procedure prescribed by under taking enquiry as contemplated under Proviso to Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. since the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Session. Since there was non disclosure of result of her earlier report to the police by the 2nd respondent in her private complaint referring the private complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. arose. At any rate, it is only an irregularity and not an illegality. The said irregularity can be corrected by setting aside endorsement of the Magistrate referring the private complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.” 8. In the decision cited 2nd supra, the learned single Judge of this court held that once a crime is registered and if some subsequent events come to the notice of the investigating agency, the police can alter the FIR but the question of registering another crime would not arise. Office in charge of the police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Even after conclusion of the investigation in pursuance of filing of the FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. if the officer-in-charge of the police station comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court and forward further evidence, if any collected with further report or reports to the court as contemplated under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant submits that the 1st respondent submitted a private complaint before the learned Magistrate after coming to know the SMS messages received from the petitioners on the night of the incident and therefore, the learned Magistrate is justified in forwarding the complaint to the concerned police U/Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. 10. The 1st respondent presented a complaint on 18-02-2009 at 8.00 p.m. reporting the death of his son-Uday Mohan Rao and the police received the same and registered a case in Cr.No. 23 of 2009 U/Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. The said case is said to be pending investigation. The 1st respondent presented a private complaint before the VII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad after coming to know of the contents of the SMS messages received by the deceased on the intervening night of 17/18-02-2009. 11. If the complaint forwarded by the court discloses the names of the accused and furnishes information with regard to other particulars, it is for the concerned police officers to alter the Section of Law and issue altered FIR. The Investigating Officer in Cr.No. 23 of 2003 consequent on receipt of the complaint forwarded by the Court U/Sec. 156 Cr.P.C., ought to have altered the Section of Law and issued altered FIR instead of registering a separate crime. Registration of a separate crime basing on the complaint forwarded by the Court cannot be sustained in the given facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 12. It is left open to the Investigating Officer to alter the Section of Law basing on the complaint forwarded by the Court and issue altered FIR. The Investigating Officer, in Cr.No.23 of 2009 shall treat the complaint as additional statement of the 1st respondent-defacto complainant and take appropriate steps with regard to the alteration of Section of Law and proceed further. 13. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. ____________ 19-08-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2010(2) ALD (Crl.) 64 (AP) [2] 2008(2) ALD (Crl.) 812 (AP)