The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 in C.C.No.399 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Ct.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pieased to stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 4 in C.C.No.399 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tlter Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing tlte arguments of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, Advocate for the Petitioners anrl Mrs. S-Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondertt No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CR]MINAL P ETITION No.8810 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.399 ot 2024 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal, registered for the offences under Sections 506 r/w 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')'

02. Heard Mr. Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati' learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State. Though the notice sent to the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 has refused to receive the same and there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 either in person or through counsel, as such' this Court after recording her absence proceeded to dispose of the present matter on merits. Perused the record.

03. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the year 2020, the husband of the de facto complainant was murdered by accused Nos.1, 3, and others, for which Crime No.299 of 2O2O was registered. On 06.02.2024' the 2 petitioners/accused Nos..t and 2 threatened the de facto complainant at Shadnagar venture. Further, ar:cused No.4 along with some others threatened the de facto ,:omplainant at her residence in Kothagudem ancl warned her to compromise the murder case, failing which they would kill her srln. 04(a).The learned counsel for the petitiorers submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have no connection with the alleged offences. On receipt of the complairrt from the de facto complainant, the Station House Officer Choutuppal, submitted a requisition to the Judicial First Clar;s Magistrate, Choutuppal, seeking permission to investigate .he matter as the alleged offence is non-cognizable. The learnerJ Magistrate granted permission on 06.03.2024, and accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioners/accused Ncs.1 to 4. 04(b). lt is further submitted that the conrp,laint shows that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly.threatened the de-facto complainant at Shadnagar, wherr., she was working. ln fact, there is no village by the name ,)f Shadnagar in Choutuppal Mandal or within the limits of Choutuppal police Station; the said Shadnagar is situated in Ranga Reddy 3 District. Further, it is alleged that petitioner/accused No.4 along with others threatened the complainant at her residence in Kothagudem village of Batasingaram Mandal, Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District. This village also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of Choutuppal Police Station. Nevertheless, the Choutuppal Police entertained the complaint and sought permission from the Magistrate. 04(c). lt is further submitted that as per Section 155 Cr.P.C., which deals with information as to non-cognizable cases and invest(;ation thereof, Section 155(1) provides that when information is given to an officer in charge of a Police Station regarding the commission of a non-cognizable offence within the limits of such station, he shall enter the substance of the information in a prescribed register and refer the informant to the Magistrate. This clearly indicates that the police have jurisdiction only where the alleged offence is committed within the limits of their police station. Further, Section 155(2) mandates that no police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit it for trial. 4 4(d). lt is further submitted that the order ()f permission accorded by the learned Magistrate is not a r:asoned order and it was casually granted without proper appl cation of mind to the contents of the complaint, and hence, is invalid in the eye of law. Moreover, the alleged complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant after a delay of one month from the date of the alleged incident, and no explanation has b,:en offered for such delay. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

05. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public Prosecutor contended that there are specif ic allegations against the petitioners. All the allegations le velled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are sut)ject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash th= proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

06. For the sake of convenience, Serction 155 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder:

155. lnformation as fo non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.- 0) Wn91 information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the lim-its of such station of a non-cognizable offence, lte shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such otficer in 5 such fom as fhe Stafe Govemment may prescribe in this behalf, and re{er the informant to the Magislrate. (2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrale having power to try such case or commit the case for tial. (3) Any police officer rcceiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to anest without wanant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable"

07. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. provides that when information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non- cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate, and no police offic€r shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such oase or commit the case for trial

08. A bare reading of Section 155(1) of the Cr.P.C indicates that the phrase 'within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence' is absent in the former section. That is to say that, a non-cognizable offence can be registered only by 6 an officer of the police station having territorial jurisdiction. ln other words, in cases of non_cognizable offertr:es, the police can register the FrR onry if such offences rvr:re committed within its jurisdiction.

09. ln accordance with Section 155(2) of the Cr.p.C., the police officer is always empowered to approach the concerned Magistrate and seek permission rtr orders for investigating into such non-cognizable offence. ln the present case, the police officer has righfly made a reluisition to the concerned Magistrate by accepting the complaint and seeking permission as a non-cognizable offence is made out. lt is not made clear in the order of permission, whethe. the informant was produced before the learned Magistrate, in c:ompliance of Section 155 of Cr.p.C. However, the learned tvlagistrate without giving reasons has just endorsed irs, ,permitted,. Admittedly, there is delay of one month irr lodging the complaint, which remained unexplained and unreasonable. '10. The reason for seeking permission cf a Magistrate to enable the police to investigate into non_cognizable offence is for the purpose of the competent Magistrate going through the contents of the complaint and if the offence, is made out 7 may permit such investigation. ln the present case, the Magistrate has not given any reasons as to why the police can be permitted to investigate into the matter. No elaborate reasons are necessary, however, the order should atleast indicate that the Magistrate has gone through the complaint and satisfied himself to grant such permission.

11. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the permission granted by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and liable to be set aside. The Order of the learned Magistrate in permitting the investigation without giving any reason shows non-application of mind and the permission granted vide Order dated

06.03.2024 has to be set aside. Accordingly, the permission granted by the learned Magistrate on 06.03.2024 is hereby set aside.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.399 of 2024 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal. However, the learned Magistrate is not precluded from granting permission for reasons to be recorded for according such permission. 8 Pending miscellaneous applications, if arv, shall stand closed SD/. A.JAYASREE ASS STANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \\, \$e ION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Choutuppal The Station House Officer, Choutuppal police Station, Rachakonda Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o,-relangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 9n" 99 to Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Gartapati, Advocate [OPUC;] Two CD Copies ABK/PSI, Y1- HIGH COURT DATED: 09/09/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8810 ot 2024 ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION 4 .eflA &-, ) J -! t{E S 14

2..( 9F '{: 2 5 tlou 15 a A \ PA ,toet!cT