THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.1087 of 2014 04-02-2014 Ms.Kavadi Gouthami....Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Home, Hyderabad, rep.
by the Principal Secretary & others....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sr.M.S.Prasad, Senior Counsel for Sr.V.
Lakshman Rao Counsel for the Respondent 1 to 4 : GP for Home HEAD NOTE: ?.Cases referred THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1087 of 2014 ORDER
: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith complete the investigation including arrest of the accused in Crime No.393 of 2013 registered by the Police Station at Langer House, Hyderabad and take action against the accused in accordance with law, after declaring the inaction and abdication as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The facts relevant for our inquiry, at present, are that the petitioner was the de facto-complainant in Crime No.393 of 2013 on the file of Langer House Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which are cognizable and non-bailable offences.
The crime was registered on 18.10.2013.
Thereafter, at the instance of the police, the petitioner's statement in accordance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, on 21.10.2013.
In spite of the same, no tangible action has been taken so far in the matter.
Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.
It is, no doubt, true that the petitioner lodged a complaint with the police on 18.10.2013, at about 04.30 p.m.She has also named the accused therein.
It is also true that the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has recorded the statement of the writ petitioner herein under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal M.P.No.3468 of 2013 in Crime No.393 of 2013.
The relevant portion of her statement reads as under: ".
There were several persons in the office of the advocate.
Then the said advocate asked me to come to his house at Khaderbagh on the same day in the evening.
Accordingly, myself and the said Kishan went to the house of the advocate.
The said Kishan left me asking me to talk with the advocate.
The advocate called me inside the house and asked me to sit there.
Then the advocate went inside the house and took alcohol and came to me after half an hour.
Then the advocate put his hands on my chest.
When I objected, the advocate told me that he was talking about my case only, closed my mouth and raped me.
The advocate threatened me not to disclose the incident to the said Kishan or anybody.
He dropped me in his car at my house.
Two days thereafter in the evening, the said advocate Khaja Moizuddin told me that he committed a mistake, he will marry me after getting divorce and asked me to come to his house.
Then the advocate threatened me that he will put my photos in the internet and circulate them to my relatives if I fail to come to his house.
Thereafter, due to fear I went to the house of the advocate.
Again the advocate raped me.
The advocate thereafter was raping me continuously.
Totally, he raped me for about 15 times.
The advocate also threatened me to kill if I fail to withdraw the case.".
It is contended by Sr.M.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of very serious nature of allegations made by the petitioner in her statement recorded by the Magistrate, the police are so casual and callous in their attitude in carrying out the investigation into the matter.
The learned Senior Counsel would urge that because of the influence of the accused person, the police are buckling under his pressure and they are subverting the couRs.of justice by not undertaking an impartial investigation into the matter.
Hence, the learned Senior Counsel would urge that the instant case demonstrates as to how an investigating agency entrusted with the obligation to carry on investigation into a cognizable offence, has not merely failed in its duty but is in the process, perpetrating injustice.
He would therefore, urge that the Court must take a serious note of the conduct of the police and take appropriate action against them for the failure exhibited in investigating into the crime so far.
It will be important to notice that Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisaged that the information relating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced to writing and shall be entered in a book to be kept in such form as the State Government may prescribe.
The information so recorded is commonly known as the 'FiRs.Information Report' (FIR).Section 156 of the Code conferred power upon any police officer-in-charge of a police station, without the order of a Magistrate, to investigate any cognizable case and no proceeding of such a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that he was not empowered under this Section to investigate.
This apart, every Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code to take cognizance of any offence, may also order for such an investigation to be carried out on receipt of the FiRs.Information Report.
Section 157 of the Code prescribed the procedure to be followed, while undertaking the investigation.
It will also be important to notice that Section 157(1)(b) of the Code sets out that if it appears to the officer-in-charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering into an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
However, it will be important to notice that Section 164 of the Code conferred power upon any Magistrate to record any statement made to him in the couRs.of an investigation.
Therefore, the very fact that the writ petitioner's statement under Section 164 of the Code has been recorded by the VII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.10.2013 discloses that the investigation has been undertaken by the police, in right earnest, into Crime No.393 of 2013 registered by them on 18.10.2013.
Section 172 contemplated every police officer making an investigation to make entries on day to day basis on his proceedings in the investigation in a diary.
Sub- section (2) of Section 172 empowered any criminal Court to send for the police diaries of a case under enquiry or trial.
Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Code makes it abundantly clear that every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
The language employed in sub-section (1) of Section 173 makes it clear that a sincere attempt must be made by the Investigating Officer to complete the necessary investigation without any unnecessary delay.
The rationale behind this provision is to ensure that the investigation, if carried out promptly and in quick time, is capable of fetching the required quantum of evidence for prosecuting the accused properly.
Collection of evidence as part of exercise of investigation is the bedrock upon which the trial that will be undertaken later on into the crime and the possible conviction to the accused can be secured.
It is therefore, imperative that the investigation must be carried out with reasonable expedition.
That is the reason why sub-section (1) instead of prescribing any time frame for completing the investigation, has deployed certain expressions, which convey the necessary urgency to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation.
The expressions ".unnecessary delay".
used therein signify the importance of prompt and careful investigation into the matter.
The provision also keeps in mind the rights of the accused to have a fair investigation into the complaints lodged against them.
The fundamental principle is that the State shall be entitled to prosecute all offenders in accordance with law, but at the same time, no innocent person should unnecessarily be bothered and harassed for having to face the harrowing experience of a criminal prosecution.
Therefore a right balance is sought to be maintained by the Legislature by using certain careful expressions under sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Code.
The competing claims of the victims on the one hand and the accused on the other are sought to be balanced very carefully in the process Now turning to the criticism of the learned Senior Counsel that in spite of lapse of time from 21.10.2013, the date on which the de facto-complainant's statement under Section 164 of the Code has been recorded by the learned Magistrate, no meaningful investigation has been carried out by the police.
The statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, based upon the instructions received by him from the Investigating Officer, that necessary steps are already taken for ascertaining the truth or otherwise behind the allegations and that the Investigating Officer is in the process of winding up his investigation and file an appropriate report for consideration of his superior police officer, before the same is filed before the Magistrate, is also required to be noticed.
From the above statement, what emerges is that the final report in accordance with Section 173 of the Code is likely to be finalized by the Investigating Officer and the same is also likely to be filed before the Court sooner than later.
In this view of the matter, I am not in a position to subscribe to the view that mere lapse of time from 21.10.2013 need not necessarily lead to an invariable inference that the police officer investigating into the crime has abdicated his duties and responsibilities in that regard.
To my mind, ends of justice would be met if the Investigating Officer is directed to finalize his investigation and file a final report before the Court concerned on or before 01.03.2014, so that the writ petitioner can work out her remedies in accordance with law thereafter.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of, directing the Investigating Officer to finalize his investigation and file the final report before the Court concerned latest by 01.03.2014.
No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.
------------------------------------------- NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J04h February 2014