AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Vacate Stay Petition - W.V.M.P. No. 295/96 in W.P.M.P. No. 1053/96 in Writ Petition No. 891/1996 is listed before me in the Interlocutory Matters.
The petition, W.V.M.P. No. 295/96 is filed by the 4th Respondent in Writ Petition No. 891/96 praying to vacate the interim order passed by a learned Judge on 24-1-1996 in W.P.M.P. No. 1053/96 in Writ Petition No. 891/96. By the said order, interim stay of investigation into Crime No. 109 of 1995 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, was granted. It was further ordered therein that the interim stay order shall not preclude the investigation and further action in Cr. No. 221/1995 registered in Jillapet Poti Police Station, Jalgaon, Maharashtra State.
The prayer in the main writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed with the investigation into Crime No. 109/95 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station on the ground that they have no jurisdiction. Therefore, the prayer in the main writ petition and in the interlocutory application are one and the same.
Since the prayer in the main writ petition and in the interlocutory application wherein interim stay was granted being one and the same and the present WVMP is filed seeking to vacate the interim order and as the consideration in the vacate petition and in the main writ petition being one and the same, the main writ petition itself is taken up for consideration and decision.
Heard the counsel for petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
This writ petition is filed for issuing a writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3, viz., State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, the Station House Officer, Madanapalle I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Tirupathi, not to proceed with the investigation into Crime No. 109 of 1995 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to investigate into the said crime.
The facts, stated in the affidavit, in brief may be noticed. The first petitioner is working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise at Jalgaon, Maharashtra State. On 24-11-1993, he married Sreelatha, daughter of the 4th respondent. Fourth respondent is working as Inspector of Police at Madanapalle. On 28-2-1994, Sreelatha joined the 1st petitioner at Jalgaon in Maharashtra State and lived with him for about fifteen (15) months. On 1-8-1995, according to petitioners, she committed suicide at Jalgaon. In that connection, Crime No. 44/1995 was registered at Jillapet Poti Police Station, Jalgaon u/s 174, Criminal Procedure Code. When the fourth respondent-herein got the information about the incident, he gave a report to the Police at Madanapalle at 5 p.m. on 2-8-1995. The said report was registered as Crime No. 109 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 302, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Fourth respondent, after going to Jalgaon from Madanapalle, gave a report in Jillapet Poti Police Station, Jalgaon in Maharashtra State on 2-8-1995 at about 11.15 p.m. which was registered as Crime No. 221/1995, for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation was taken up at Jalgaon. Petitioners were arrested and released on bail.
It is the case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent, being a Police Officer, working at Madanapalle, influenced the Police Officers investigating into the case at Madanapalle and the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, Chittoor, to send for the Case Diary from Jalagaon in Maharashtra State and after receipt of the same the police at Madanapalle started parallel inquiry. On a representation given by the 1st petitioner, the case in Cr. No. 109/95 of Madanappalle I Town Police Station was made-over to the C.B.C.I.D. at Hyderabad for investigation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the incident took place at Jalgaon in Maharashtra State and a crime was already registered at Jalagaon, the local police at Madanapalle have no jurisdiction to inquire into the said crime, which took place outside its jurisdiction. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the police at Jalgaon have already registered a crime against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and as per the report lodged by the 4th respondent the alleged harassment of the deceased for dowry was also at Jalagaon in Maharashtra State and, therefore, the Police at Jalgaon only have the jurisdiction to inquire and investigate into the crime. It is also contended that, on a mere allegation that the 1st petitioner making demands, on telephone, on the fourth respondent for payment of dowry amount, the police at Madanapalle cannot clutch at the jurisdiction to inquire and investigate into the crime. Learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance upon Clause (4) of Standing Order No. 495 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, in support of his contention.
It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondents that the investigation into the crime registered at Madanapalle cannot be stopped in view of Section 156, Criminal Procedure Code. It is also contended that as the report lodged by the 4th respondent with the Madanapalle Police pertains to the offences under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which are only incidental to the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and as the death of Sreelatha is sequel to the demand for dowry made by the petitioners, the police authorities at Madanapalle have got the jurisdiction to investigate into the crime. Further, relying upon the provisions of Sections 178 and 179, Criminal Procedure Code, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that where it is uncertain as to in which of several local areas an offence is committed the police having jurisdiction over any of such local areas can investigate into the same.
In view of the rival contentions, the point for determination in this writ petition is, whether the police authorities at Madanapalle, have got the jurisdiction to investigate into the crime registered at Madanapalle in Cr. No. 109/1995 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station for the death of Sreelatha, daughter of the 4th respondent, which took place at Jalagaon in Maharashtra State ?
In the report lodged by the 4th respondent with the Madanapalle Police on 2-8-1995, it is alleged that about four months prior to that the parents of the 1st petitioner and sister of 1st petitioner spoke to the 4th respondent on telephone from Jalagaon and demanded for providing a Maruti Car to the 1st petitioner. Further, it is specifically alleged therein that on 1-8-1995, between 9.45 p.m. to 1 p.m., the 4th respondent, when contacted Sreelatha (deceased) on telephone from Tirupathi, she informed 4th respondent that if the agreed balance amount of rupees five lakhs and the Maruti Car are not given to the first petitioner-herein, she has no alternative except to get back to her parents home or to die. The offences registered in the I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, based on the report lodged by the 4th respondent, are under Sections 302, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The necessary ingredients for registering a crime in Cr. No. 109/1995) for the offences under Sections 302, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code are indicated in the report lodged by the 4th respondent with the police at Madanapalle. The matter is still under investigation. Sections 178 and 179. Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, empower the police authorities at Madanapalle to investigate into Crime No. 109/1995 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station.
It is now well-settled that, investigation into a crime by the police authorities cannot be intercepted or stopped under any circumstances. The suicide committed by Sreelatha, daughter of the 4th respondent at Jalgaon in Maharashtra State, as per the reports lodged by the 4th respondent, both at Jalagaon and Madanapalle, is sequel to the demands for dowry made by the 1st petitioner and his relatives and, therefore, it is incidental to the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the circumstances, when there is basis in the reports for the alleged demands made by the 1st petition and his relations at Madanapalle for payment of dowry from the 4th respondent, the police authorities at Madanapalle have also got jurisdiction to inquire into the crime and investigate the same. In that view of the matter, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the police at Jalgaon alone have got the jurisdiction to inquire into and investigate the crime, as per the provisions of Clause (4) of Standing Order No. 495 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Orders, cannot be countenanced. In fact, on a representation given by the 1st petitioner, the case has been made over to the C.B.C.I.D. for investigation and the Investigating Officer of C.B.C.I.D. at Tirupathi is investigating into the case. Further, the Superintendent of Police, Jalagaon District, by communication dated 26-10-1995 informed the Inspector-General of Police, C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad that the investigation at Jalgaon has been completely transferred to Madanapalle police by his (Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon) letter, dated 21-9-1995 and the entire investigation at their end in Jalgaon has been closed. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that there cannot be simultaneous investigation into the same crime at two places, cannot be accepted.
Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, I hold that the investigation by the C.B.C.I.D. authorities into Crime No. 109 of Madanapalle I Town Police Station registered at Madanapalle cannot be stopped. The writ petition is without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Petition dismissed.