IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7211 of 2008 BETWEEN Balla Srinivasa Rao. ... PETITIONER AND Peddinti Narayan Rao and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME MR. CH. DHANAMJAYA The Court made the following order: ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to quash F.I.R.No.27 dated 11.03.2008 on the file of the Police Station, Annavaram, which is registered against the petitioner. 2. The Executive Officer of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy vari temple at Annavaram issued notice inviting tenders for supply of Copper Madas (copper coin with picture of God embossed on either side). Thereafter, the Executive Officer placed indent upon the petitioner for supply for one lakh Copper Madas accepting his tender. On 22.11.2007, at the time of assort of the Temple Hundees in the presence of Founder Trustee and Chairman, the Executive Officer of the Temple and other staff, found fake Madas of Sri Swamyvari idol in the hundees. Suspecting that the said Madas were fake, the Executive Officer got appraised the Madas and the Appraiser declared that the Madas are fake. The temple authorities seized the fake madas under the cover of mediators report. The Chairman addressed a letter to the Executive Officer to cause enquiry in the matter and take necessary action against the concerned for supplying fake madas to the temple. 3. The first respondent herein viz. Peddinti Narayan Rao, who previously served as Sarpanch of Annavaram Gram Panchayat filed a private complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu against the petitioner – contractor for supplying aluminium idols instead of copper idols of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy varu without maintaining quality and quantity by violating the terms and conditions of the agreement and thereby, the petitioner cheated the Devasthanam as well as the devotees and wrongfully gained through his deceitful acts. The defacto complainant also produced two fake madas, which were supplied by the contractor. On filing such complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the matter was referred to the police for investigation and the case was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.27 of 2008 for alleged offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the file of the Annavaram Police Station and investigation was taken up. When the investigation was in progress, this writ petition is filed and further investigation is stayed by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the learned Magistrate already took cognizance of the complaint the process of registration of crime by issuing FIR is illegal. It is also submitted that no complaint is lodged by the temple authorities and the petitioner is no way connected with the affairs of the temple. The said private complaint is filed with a motive owing to the animosity of the first respondent with the petitioner. It is submitted that as the very registration of the crime is illegal, it is a fit case that the FIR be quashed by this Court. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in JAMUNA SINGH v. BHADAI SHAH[1] as well as a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No.21556 of 2002. 5. On behalf of the second respondent, a detailed counter affidavit is filed wherein while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that in view of the complaint lodged against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police vide Memo.Dis.No.84 dated 18.01.2008 for causing enquiry, a case is registered in Cr.No.27 of 2008 against the petitioner and investigation was taken up. It is also stated that the Investigating Officer has seized two fake madas. 6. It has to be noticed that on filing a private complaint before the learned Magistrate, the matter was referred to police for investigation as the Magistrate is empowered to order such investigation and enquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. When a complaint is referred for investigation, it is obligatory on the part of the police to register a case and take up investigation on the allegations in the complaint. The contention of the learned counsel that no FIR can be registered based on such reference cannot be accepted. Unless a crime is registered the police cannot take up investigation on the allegations made against the petitioner. Although it is submitted that the petitioner is no way connected and the complaint is not filed by the temple authorities, a perusal of the complaint itself indicates that the first respondent has filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate in the capacity of a devotee of the temple. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel, referred to above, but they do not render much assistance to the learned counsel. 7. So far as the further contention advanced by the learned counsel that the temple authorities have not filed any complaint in the absence of which investigation cannot be made, it has to be seen that the complaint is lodged, inter alia, stating that it is filed in the capacity of the devotee of the temple. In that view of the matter, the first respondent can always maintain such complaint against the petitioner, who was a contractor, who supplied the copper madas to the temple. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to quash the FIR at this stage. However, it has to be noticed that as the petitioner is disowning such copper madas, it is a matter for further investigation as to whether the said copper madas are supplied by the petitioner or not. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to take up further investigation from the stage where it was stayed by this Court but the respondents shall not take steps to arrest the petitioner till investigation is completed in Cr.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Annavaram Police Station. It is also made clear that after completion of investigation, it is open for the respondents to take steps in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J August 18, 2011 DSK [1] AIR 1964 SC 1541