T K KODANDARAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-11-15
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 27,1992

T.K.KODANDARAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JAI SINGH V. NAND LAL [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN AMOL SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DEVARAPALLI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY VS. V NARAYANA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
TULA RAM VS. KISHORE SINGH [REFERRED TO]
H S BAINS DIRECTOR SMALL SAVING CUM DEPUTY SECRETARY FINANCE PUNJAB CHANDIGARH VS. STATE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
SADASHIV MAHADEO YAVALUJE AND GAJANAN SHRIPATRAO SALOKHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DISSENTED FROM]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
P.JAGADISWARARAO V. K. VENKATESWARLU [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

FRADEEP JAISWAL VS. JAISWAL PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1995-3-13] [REFERRED]
ANIREDDY SURENDER REDDY VS. C I OF POLICE [LAWS(APH)-2003-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTTAMBHAI KARSHANBHAI SURANI VS. CHANDRIKABEN KARSHANBHAI SURANI [LAWS(GJH)-2008-2-210] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application, filed under S. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr. P.C.) praying to quash the proceedings connected with the order dated 25-1-1989 in S.C.(SR) No. 138 of 1989 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and consequently the F.I.R. dated 25-1-1989 in Crime No. 23 of 1989 of Marredpally Police Station, Secunderabad. 1A. Sri T. K. Kodandaram, the party in person urged the following two contentions
(1) Unless the complainant is examined under S. 200, Cr. P.C. the learned Magistrate cannot refer the case to the police for investigation, so the order dated 25-1-1989 referring the complaint to police is illegal and all consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed.

(2) The action of the Station House Officer, Marredpally Police Station, Secunderabad, (third respondent herein) in registering the complaint is illegal as a private complaint cannot be converted into a police case under S. 190(1)(b), Cr. P.C., so the F.I.R. issued by the third respondent on 25-1-1989 in Crime No. 23 of 1989 of Marredpally Police Station, has to be quashed.

(2.)The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with law and he had strictly followed the procedure contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. His further submission is that at the state of investigation the High Court will not interfere with the investigation by the police, Sri L. Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent adopts the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and submits that the criminal petition is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
(3.)On these contentions the questions that arise for consideration are :
(1) Whether the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 25-1-1989 passed without examining the complainant under S. 200, Cr. P.C. and referring the complaint under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. to police for investigation and report is legal.

(2) Whether the F.I.R. issued by the third respondent on 25-1-1989 on the basis of the referred complaint is liable to be quashed.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.