Full Judgment
Bhaskar Rao, J.
This writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 7-8-91 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, CID Hyderabad, the respondent directing the petitioners to appear before her on 9-8-91.
1. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 in Crime No. 131 of 1990 of Police Station Amberpet. The above crime was registered against the petitioners and seven others under Sections 420, 498A and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Originally a private complaint was field by Mrs. Farhana Parveen who is the wife of the 1st accused against the petitioners and 7 others before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court Hyderabad. The Magistrate before taking cognisance of the offences referred the case to the Station House Officer Amberpet Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for investigation. The Police, Amperpet registered the crime on 29-5-90 and took up investigation. During the cource of investigation the police Amberpet went to Markapur and enquired with the petitioners. The investigation is still pending. While so, the petitioners received the impugned notice dated 7-8-91 whereby they were directed to appear before the respondent on 9-8-91. The said notice was served on the petitioners on 8-8-91 at Markapur. It is alleged that the police threatened to arrest the petitioners in case they failed to appear before the respondent on 9-8-91. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is suffering from blood pressure and diabetes and expressed her inability to appear before the respondent on the very next day. It is submitted that when once the investigation is being done by the Station House Officer, Amberpet Police Station the respondent has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation and direct the petitioners to appear before her. The SHO, Amberpet PS is the proper authority to complete the investigation and file charge-sheet if a case is made out against the petitioners. The Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for two parallel investigations by different authorities and there is no valid sanction to issue the impugned notice. The petitioners having no other remedy filed this writ petition.
2. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent, contended that a separate cell is constituted in the CID to deal cases arising out of the attrocities against women and the same is headed by a Superintendent of Police and supporting staff of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspectors. The staff will deal with investigations in offences relating to harassment, dowry deaths and a betment of suicide against women. Whenever any person complaints of inaction or perfunctory investigation by the local police relating to atrocities against women, preliminary enquiries will be made and after being satisfied that the investigation is not on proper lines then the investigation is taken over by the CID. All other cases are investigated by the local police In the present case, representation were received that the local police were adapting a lukewarm attitude in the progress of investigation. Therefore, to ascertain whether proper investigation was done or not by the local police, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioners. The enquiry is only to find out whether it is a fit case to be taken over for investigation from the local police. The impugned notice is valid and there are merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore liable to be dismissed.
3. In view of the above rival contentions, the main question of law that arises for consideration is :
'When the Criminal Court directed the SHO, Amberpet PS under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to conduct investigation, whether the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, CID Hyderabad has jurisdiction to investigate the crimes involving offences against women, particularly under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 IPC and under the Dowry Prohibition Act'?
4. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with 'information to the Police and their powers to investigate'. Section 156 of the Code deals with the powers of police officer to investigate into a cognizable case. Section 156(1) empowers the Police officer to investigate any cognizable case within the limits of his jurisdiction. Section 156(2) says that 'no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this Section to investigate.' Under Section 156(3) the Magistrate is empowered to order such an investigation to be taken up by the police into the cases received by him. Thus, as per Section 156 of the Code, the police has got jurisdiction to investigate on the order issued by the Court under Section 156(3) and submit a report. Section 36 of the Code prescripes powers of superior officers of police. It empowers the police officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station, to exercise the same powers through the local area to which they are appointed as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. Thus the Police officers superior in rank can exercise the same Powers of investigation as are exercised by the Station House Officer.
5. It is relevant to mention that the crimes against women are increasing day-by-day particularly dowry-deaths abetment of suicide and harassment of women by the husband and in-laws. Therefore, the Parliament, with an intention to take effective steps to control such crimes inserted in the Indian Penal Code Sections 498A, (cruelty by husband or relatives of husband, 306 (abetment of suicide) and 304B (dowry death) and also amended the Dowry Prohibition Act to stop the evil of dowry and correspondingly Sections 113A and 113B are introduced in the Evidence Act for drawing presumption under the circumstances laid down in those Sections
6. Thus to effectively control the crime against women the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued GO Ms. No. 452 Home (Police-F) Department dated 26-7-86. By virtue of the said GO, a separate Cell in CB CID is set up to deal with crimes against women. The Cell consists of Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, Police Constables and other staff. The said Cell is empowered (i) to monitor the progress of investigation and prosecutions and take follow-up action and (ii) to maintain liasion with the social workers representing the various organisations, which record the statements of the factual nature and these statements, will be conisidered as per the Evidence Act. As per the said GO the respondent is deemed to be a superior officer in rank to all the Station Officers within the jurisdiction of the Crime Branch, CID Hyderabad, and he can exercise powers to investigate as per Section 36 of the Code. Therefore the investigation to be conducted by the respondent cannot be said to be a parallel investigation or separate investigation. I, therefore, see no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the investigation by the respondent is a parallel investigation and is without valid sanction. The contention is accordingly rejected.
7. It is next contended that on a perusal of the complaint, no case is made out against the petitioners. The question whether offences are made out or not against the petitioners has to be decided only after the case is taken cognizance of. Now the case is only at the stage of investigation and offences involved are very serious in nature. It is not the stage to come to a conclusion whether offences are made out or not against the petitioners.
8. In view of the above, it has to be held that the respondent, created under GO Ms. No. 452 dated 26-7-86 has got jurisdiction to investigate into the crimes registered in the police stations within her jurisdiction.
9. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 500/-.