Pendoti Ramabrahmam v. The State of Telangana

The Station House Officer, Husnabad Village and Mandal, Karimnagar Distract. The Sub lnspector of Police, Husnabad Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. f\Iarivala Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Yadagiri Reddy, aged about 53 years, Occ VlttJge secretary, Nawa6pet Village, Husnabad ttilandal, Karimnagar Distnct The Station House officer, CBCID, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent filed charge sheet without adding Section 468 and 471 of IPC is itself illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principli:s of idtuiElluslice-conliequent{y to direct the 2nd respondent to transfer ihe petitioner case for. CBCID (6th respondent) for fair investigation and filing additional charge sheet. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WP MP. NO: 53525 OF 2017) Petition under section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner case for CBCID (6th respondent) for fair investigation and filing additional charge sheet, pending disposal of the writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No. 31612017 on the file of Principal Judicial First CIass Magistrate at Husnabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 4 : SRI M. SRINIVAS, ASST. GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.S: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTIGE N' TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITI ON o.tt3l of 20 17 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: "...to issue a wit, order or direction' more pafticula.rly iiii" iriii ir w'it or Mandamus' dectaing-.the. "ri ;i;; ;; th; ;'i-reipondent ftted charge sheet.-without "^,i """iii""'sZiiirs 4da and 471 of tPC is itsetf ittegat' Z";i;X*";;;;; riaitio' or prilciptes or natu.rat.iustice- "":;;;;;";;;i, i. iirect the'?d respondent to trgnst:! i;:";;i;;;;, Ja"e ror cBCtD ({ respondent) ror rarr invistigation and filing additional charge sneer' '

2. Heard K.Srinivas, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No'1 to 4'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3, the lnvestigating Officer' has filed a charge sheet without including Sections 468 and 471 of the lndian Penal Code (lPC)' despite having collected sufficient material indicating the commission of offences under those provisions' Aggrieved by such omission and the manner in which the investigation was conducted' the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to declare the action of respondent No.3 as illegal, and to transfer the investigation to the CBCID for a fair and proper investigation' with a further direction to file a comprehensive charge sheet including the said Penal Provisions' I 2

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Home, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4, submits that the crime was duly investigated, and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, which was taken on file as C.C. No.316 of ZO17 on the file of the learned principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad. lt is further submitted that the trial court has taken cognizance, framed char.ges, and the matter is presenfly pending for trial, Hence, at this stage, the contention of the petitioner that certain penar provisions were omitted in the charge sheet is untenable, and the prayer for transfer of investigation is improper and unsustainable. Accordingly, the learned Govemment pleader prays for passing appropriate orders. 5 I have considered the pleadings and perused the material on record

6. The contention of the petitioner is twofold. First, it is alleged that the lnvestigating Officer failed to include Sections 46g and 471 lPe in the charge sheet, despite availability of materials suggesting the commission of those offences.

7. ln this regard, it is to be noted that the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal procedure, i973 (CrpC) mandates that the police, upon receipt of a complaint and completion of \ L 3 investigation, shall file a final report or charge sheet before the competent court sefting out the offences alleged' The Court thereafter applles its judicial mind to the material placed and decides whether to take cognizance and frame charges under approPriate Provisions of law' lt is thus well settled that it is the prerogative of the 8. Magistrate, upon perusal of the charge sheet and accompanying material, to determine the applicable penal provisions' and not merely the sections mentioned by the lnvestigating Offlcer' The Supreme Court has consistently held in Bhagwant Singh v' Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537' and Nupur Talwar v' CBl, (2012\ 11 SCC 465, that the Court is not bound by the sections cited by the police in the charge sheet' and may add or alter charges upon satisfaction that the material justifies the same' ln the present case, it is an admitted position that the trial 9. court has already taken cognizance of the charge sheet' framed charges, and the criminal trial is in progress' These developments clearly indicate that the trial court- has exercised its iudicial discretion after evaluating the material placed before it' Consequently, a direction to the lnvestigating Officer to include 4 additional sections at this stage would be redundant and procedurally improper

10. However, it is clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to raise appropriate contentions before the trial court, including liling an application under section 216 crpc for alteration or addition of charges, if the evidence on record supports incrusion of the aileged provtstons.

11. Second, the petitioner seeks transfer of the investigation to respondent No.6 (CBCID) on the ground of alleged bias or improper investigation. However, apart from aileging that certain sections were omitted from the charge sheet, the petitioner has not produced any material evidence indicating malafides, bias, or procedural irregularity on the part of respondent No.3.

12. lt is a settled principle of law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of police, CBCID, (2013) 12 SCC 480, and Sampat Lat v. State of Haryana, (1gg2) 4 SCC 61, that transfer of investigation to another agency such as the CBCID or CBI can be ordered only in exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear demonstration of bias, mara fide intention, or fairure of justice. No such exceptional circumstances have been established in the present case. . 5

13. Given that the matter is now at the stage of trial' and the judicial process has already commenced' there is no justification for transferring the investigation at this belated stage'

14. ln view of the-above discussion' this Court finds no merit in the prayer of the petitioner either for inclusion of additional sections in the charge sheet or for transfer of investigation'

15. Accordingly, with the liberty granted above' this Writ Petition is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs' There shall be no order as to costs MiscellaneousPetitions,pendingifany'shallstandclosed. \ //TRUE coPY// SO/-S. MALL]KARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (e sEcrloN oFFlcER "t;;d ",it-of-d;iiA an. Principal Secretary, 1jqme. Q9o-{ll1l' The State of Telangana' Seiretariai Buildings' Saifabad' Hyderaoao" ' -r"i'nnas.at to'',. ' z. inJ' SiipL ti 3. The Station nou." uiiil"l,lirinrUiO Vittage and Mandal, Karimnagar o. ?itJtio lnspector of Police' Husnabad Village and Mandal' Karimnagar ?Ltt[,." House officer, CBCID' Karimnagar"Karimnagar District' . *i g:.l"dslt"xul"n: ftx'al;.JP"?,,31.*," of reransana' roUrr District at Karimnasar' 5 6 7 8 Two CD CoPies BN BSo HIGH COURT DATED:1611012025 ORDER WP.No.43166 of 2017 ( oR TIlE c \)o t t 1 6 'rq "ru[ z t t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ::6-7--