HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5530 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner/A1, who is an Advocate is accused of offence punishable under Section 384 IPC in crime No. 564 of 2009 of Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad District. The 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant, who gave report to the police. In the report dated 07.06.2009 the 2nd respondent alleged that in his absence in the house at about 4.30 p.m. some unknown male person aged 25 years opened the door of his house with false key and threatened his wife and took away gold jewellery weighing about 65 grams worth about Rs.1,40,000/-. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the said First Information Report does not prima facie allege any offence muchless one punishable under Section 384 IPC against the petitioner/A1. As pointed out earlier, the offence is stated to have been committed by an unknown male person aged 25 years. It is contended that FIR taken on its face value, does not reveal any offence against A-1 and that therefore, continuance of the proceedings against A-1 is nothing but abuse of process of law. 2. First Information Report is not an encyclopedia. It is just a paper which puts criminal law machinery into motion. First Information Report is not be all and end all of the prosecution case. It is for the Investigating officer to collect evidence during the course of investigation and to arrive at his own conclusions on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and ultimately filed final report/charge sheet before the Magistrate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. During collection process of evidence, several pieces of evidence may come on record and several circumstances may come on record and complicity of several other persons, who are not named in the FIR may also be unearthed. There are no limits on these aspects during investigation in order to give a logical conclusion to the investigation. Therefore, the contention that First Information Report does not reveal any offence against the petitioner/A1 does not stand to scrutiny in law. 3. As per remand report filed by the Investigating Officer in relation to A2, the Investigating Officer stated that role of A-1 was revealed by A-2 after her arrest and when she gave her confessional statement in the presence of mediators. No doubt, confession said to have been made by an accused person in police custody is no legal evidence. But, at the same time, it can form basis for investigation to have leads and to collect legal evidence during the course of further investigation. The investigation is still pending. Therefore, at this stage, this court cannot rule out complicity of A1 in this case. It is for the Investigating Officer to finally arrive at a conclusion after collecti of complete evidence during investigation. 4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that during pendency of this criminal petition, the petitioner was granted stay of arrest permitting further investigation to go on and that the same order may be passed even while finally disposing of this criminal petition. This is a property offence. Investigation includes taking accused into custody or arresting the accused and to record any confessional statements leading to recoveries which portion is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, in any property offence like this, granting stay of arrest amounts to creating obstacles for investigation of the case. Therefore, I do not propose to grant any stay of arrest of A-1 during the course of investigation. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash FIR in this case and to stall the investigation at its threshold. 5. Hence, the Criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 12-11-2010 Mjl/*