AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.—This petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., questioning the property and legality of the order passed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy, in Crl.M.P. No.112 of 2017 in Crime No.22 of 2017, dated 28.01.2017.
The respondent/Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, filed a petition under Section 167(2)(b) of Cr.P.C., requesting to order police custody of the petitioner for a period of three days for collection or recovery of certain documents. The Court passed the impugned order permitting the police custody of the petitioner on 28.01.2017, directing the Station House Officer to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate at 10.30 a.m., on 30.01.2017.
The above said order is challenged mainly on the ground that the order is bereft of any reasons much less legal reasoning and on the second ground that earlier a Crime No. 210 of 2016 was registered against this petitioner on the identical allegations based on a complaint lodged by the same de facto complainant in respect of the same property and Civil Suits O.S.Nos.1581 of 2016 and 1582 of 2016 are pending before the VII additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District ad apart from that the petitioner filed writ petitioner in W.P.No.31267 of 2016 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.210 of 2016 and obtained interim order dated 14.09.2016, which is in force. But the Magistrate, without considering the material on record, passed the order impugned in this petition.
Heard Sri. N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana, at the stage of admission.
Sri. N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order is bereft of any reasoning and in view of pendency of other crime No.210 of 2016 lodged by the same complainant against the same petitioner raising identical contentions with regard to the same property, the second complaint cannot be entertained and passing such an impugned order, ordering police custody is an illegal order. Whereas, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana, supported the impugned order in all respects.
The de facto complainant N.Ravi, lodged a complaint initially against the petitioner making identical allegations in respect of the same property and registered a Crime No.210 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447 and 427 IPC, against the petitioner and another and the same was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.31267 of 2016 and obtained interim order in W.P.M.P.No.38685 of 2016, dated 14.09.2016. The de facto complainant again lodged another complaint dated 17.01.2017, referring the pendency of suits, filing of writ petition, obtaining interim order etc., but the police without looking into the allegations made in the complaint registered another crime for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.22 of 2017.
Registration of a crime for the second time on the same allegation is a question to be decided in appropriate proceedings, but in view of limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., the propriety does not permit to record any finding about the maintainability. Moreover, the order under challenge is regarding police custody of the petitioner and a close look at the contents of the order, the police sought such custody to collect documents from the possession of the petitioner. But, for collection of documents, police custody need not be ordered since certified copies of registered documents can be obtained as well from the competent authority. Therefore, for such purpose, ordering police custody is an illegality, as the petitioner was deprived of his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, on account of such custody.
Therefore, the order under challenge dated 28.01.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.112 of 2017 in Crime No.22 of 2017, passed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when a similar complaint was lodged earlier by the de facto complainant and pendency of various suits regarding title to the property, the Court ought not to have ordered police custody exercising power under Section 167(2)(b) of Cr.P.C.NO doubt, in the complaint itself, the de facto complaint referred about pendency of various proceedings including filing of writ petition and obtaining of interim order. But the court below, without applying its mind, passed the impugned order in casual and cavalry manner and such order cannot be sustained in law.
In view of my foregoing discussion, the order under challenge is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed at the stage of admission, while directing Station House Officer, Shamshabad, to produce the petitioner before magistrate henceforth. On such production, the magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this case shall stand closed.