Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Vishal Gunni, Ips vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6640, 6702, 6734, 6802 and 6934 of
2024
COMMON ORDER:
1. The Criminal Petition No.6640 of 2024, under Section 482
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by
the petitioner/A.3 – Sri Kanthi Rana Tata, I.P.S., IGP, seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of
Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D),
467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C.
and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Sri S.Sriram, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted by
Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner
submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.
Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi
Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri A.Sai Rohit and
Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments.
Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy and Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, the
2
learned counsels for respondent No.2 submitted arguments. The
counters are filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2.
3. The Criminal Petition No.6702 of 2024, under Section 482
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by
the petitioner/A.5 – Sri M.Satyanarayana, Inspector of Police,
seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024
of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D),
467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C.
and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. Sri Vinodh Kumar Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel
being assisted by Sri Aneel Kumar Dasari, the learned counsel
for petitioner submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.
Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi
Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri A.Sai Rohit and
Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments.
Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy and Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, the
learned counsels for respondent No.2 submitted arguments. The
counters are filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3
5. The Criminal Petition No 6734 of 2024, under Section 482
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by
the petitioner/A.6 – Sri Vishal Gunni, I.P.S., D.I.G., seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of
Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D),
467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C.
and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
6. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel being
assisted by Sri P.Raj Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner
submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.
Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi
Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri A.Sai Rohit and
Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments and
counter is filed on behalf of respondent No.1/State.
7. The Criminal Petition No 6802 of 2024, under Section 482
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by
the petitioner/A.4 – Sri K.Hanumantha Rao, D.S.P., seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of
4
Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D),
467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C.
and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
8. Sri V.Pattabhi, the learned Senior Counsel being assisted
by Sri K.L.N. Swamy, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted
arguments and cited legal authorities. Sri D.Srinivas, learned
Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana, the learned Public
Prosecutor, Sri A.Sai Rohit and Sri Neelothpal Ganji, the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State
submitted arguments and counter is filed on behalf of respondent
No.1 – State.
9. The Criminal Petition No 6934 of 2024, under Section 482
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is filed by
the petitioner/A.7 – Sri Inakollu Venkateswarlu, Advocate seeking
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.469 of 2024 of
Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, N.T.R. District, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 192, 211, 218, 220, 354(D),
467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166-A and 349 read with 120B I.P.C.
and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
5
10. Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for
petitioner submitted arguments and cited legal authorities.
Sri D.Srinivas, learned Advocate General, Sri M.Lakshmi
Narayana, the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri A.Sai Rohit and Sri
Neelothpal Ganji learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent No.1-State submitted arguments and counter is
filed on behalf of respondent No.1.
11. Here we are concerned with Cr.No.469 of 2024 of
Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. It has a prequel in Cr.No.90 of
2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. The said Cr.No.90 of 2024
was allegedly set up to arm twist Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar
Jethwani to withdraw Cr.No. 764 of 2023 of Bandra Kurla Police
Station, Mumbai.
12. In this Cr.No.469 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam police station of
NTR district there are 7 accused. A1 Sri Kukkala Vidya Sagar
was arrested on 20.09.2024 and was remanded to judicial
custody. His regular bail petition in Crl.P.No.8385 of 2024 was
heard and disposed of by this court by an order dated 09.12.2024
whereunder he was granted bail.
6
13. A2 in the present crime is stated to be the former Director
General of police. He is not one of the petitioners herein. Four of
the petitioners herein are Police officers i.e., A3/ Sri Kanthi Rana
Tata, IPS, IGP, A4/ Sri K.Hanumantharao, ACP, A5/
M.Satyanarayana, Inspector of Police and A6/ Sri Vishal Gunni,
IPS, DIG. One of the petitioners herein is Sri I.Venkateswarlu who
is a practicing Advocate. They pray for prearrest bail.
14. It is a matter of importance that investigation into crimes is
conducted fairly, efficiently and in accordance with the law. Indian
police face various challenges and criticisms regarding their crime
investigation and methods they adopt. There have been cases of
torture, custodial violence, human rights abuses which include
arbitrary arrest and detention and investigative irregularities such
as falsification of evidence, coercive confessions and bias and
prejudice. According to the State, the present case depicts
registration of a false case as FIR, arbitrary arrest of innocents
and falsification of evidence and coercive investigative methods.
15. Between Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani and Sri
Kukkala Venkata Rama Vidya Sagar, there has been
acquaintance which goes back to for a decade and a half and
7
more. Between them there were allegations and counter
allegations revolving around sexual overtures and monetary
transactions. Relations got strained. It was in such circumstances
that Sri K.Vidyasagar lodged a written information pursuant to
which FIR.No.90 of 2024 at Ibrahimpatnam police station was
registered on 02.02.2024 for various offences. The said case was
registered as against Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani
as A1 and her mother as A2 and her father as A3 and her brother
as A4. A1 to A3 therein live in Mumbai. A4 therein lives in Dubai.
16. Investigation in Cr.No.90 of 2024 commenced and many
legal events took place and they could be summarized as
mentioned below:
S.No Date Event
1. 30.01.2024 K.Hanumantha Rao/A.4/Assistant
Commissioner of Police was
transferred as Sub Divisional Police
Officer, Kakinada.
2. 01.02.2024 Three flight tickets were booked to
police team from Vijayawada to
Mumbai.
3. 02.02.2024 Inspector of Ibrahimpatnam registered
a case in Crime No. 90 of 2024. Nine
flight tickets were booked from
Hyderabad to Mumbai by the
8
investigation team of Crime No.90 of
2024.
4. 03.02.2024 A1, A2 and A3 in Crime No.90 of 2024
were arrested.
5. 04.02.2024 All three accused in Crime No.90 of
2024 of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station
were produced before learned IV
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vijayawada and they were remanded
to judicial custody.
6. 05.02.2024 SHO, Ibrahimptanam filed a petition
before learned IV Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada
for police custody of all the three
accused in Crime No.90 of 2024 for a
period of 5 days vide Crl.M.P. No.225
of 2024.
7. 09.02.2024 Crl.M.P. No.225 of 2024 was allowed
for police custody for a period of 5 days
i.e., 10.02.2024 to 15.02.2024 for
interrogation in the presence of
advocate of the accused.
8. 14.02.2024 After the completion of interrogation all
the 3 accused were produced by
Investigation Officer before learned IV
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vijayawada and the court enquired the
accused about their stay during the
police custody.
9. 26.02.2024 A1 to A3 filed first bail petition under
section 437 of Cr.P.C vide C.F.No.708.
9
10. 08.03.2024 The Investigating Officer in Crime
No.90 of 2024 of Ibrahimpatnam police
station, to proceed further with the
investigation addressed Joint District
Registrar, Mumbai sub-urban, with a
request to furnish the details of the
purchaser of the alleged false
document bearing No.80AA714164
(non judicial stamp paper).
11. 12.03.2024 A1 to A3 were granted conditional bail
in Crl.M.P. No. 353 of 2024.
12. 22.03.2024 A1 to A3 in Crime No.90 of 2024 filed a
petition vide Crl.M.P. No. 74 of 2024 in
Criminal Petition No. 353 of 2024 for
modification of bail conditions.
13. 08.04.2024 Court of XII Additional District and
Session Judge – cum – VI Additional
Metropolitan session judge Vijayawada
modified the bail conditions.
14. 22.04.2024 A1 filed Quash petition in
Crl.P.No.2732 of 2024 before this court
to quash and stay all the proceedings
in Crime No.90 of 2024.
15. 05.09.2024 Kadambari Jethwani (A1 in Cr.No. 90
of 2024) filed a complaint to
Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada.
16. 13.09.2024 Kadambari Jethwani (A1 in Cr.No. 90
of 2024) filed another complaint before
Station House Officer, Ibrahimpatnam
Police Station and that was registered
as Crime No.469 of 2024 of
Ibrahimpatnam Police Station.
10
17. 14.09.2024 The Investigating Officer in Crime
No.469 of 2024 recorded statements
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C of
Kadambari Jethwani as LW.1,
Narender Kumar Jethwani as LW.2 and
Smt. Asha Narendra Kumar Jethwani
as LW.3.
18 23.09.2024 Investigating Officer filed Remand
Report against A1 in Crime No.469 of
2024.
19. 09.10.2024 Director General of Police, Andhra
Pradesh transferred both Crimes i.e.,
Crime No.90 of 2024 and Crime
No.469 of 2024 to Crime Investigation
Department (CID).
17. It is thereafter on written information dated 13.09.2024 of
Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani, the present Cr.No.469
of 2024 was registered.
18. According to prosecution, in the present crime, the accused
have committed offences under sections 193, 195, 211, 218, 220,
354D, 467, 420, 469, 471, 166, 166A, 167, 342, 120B read with
34 IPC.
11
19. Opposing the petitions, the principal submissions of learned
Advocate General are that Cr.No.90 of 2024 is a false case. From
the material collected so far, it emerged that there was high level
conspiracy among top brass. Much before registration of the
crime, the accused herein gathered at Chief Minister’s Office and
flight tickets were purchased for police to go to Mumbai. Those
police officers who were already transferred to other stations were
secured for the purpose of this case. That the FIR was registered
without making necessary preliminary enquiries and that over and
above the requirements of a case a large contingent of police
party was deputed to Mumbai. Needed discretion was never
exercised about the arrest. After arrest, the accused were not
properly appraised of the grounds of their arrest. Sri
M.Satyanarayana, the Inspector of Police foisted this false case
and he did not have due regard to the facts and circumstances.
A4/ Sri K. Hanumantha Rao, who was ACP being the immediate
supervisory officer over the investigation failed to act in
accordance with the law and there was biased investigation and
he was in collusion with other accused. He in fact was posted to
Kakinada as SDPO but he came to Vijayawada and was closely
involved and supervised the interrogation without there being any
12
orders to that affect. When the accused were still in the custody
of the police, the police pressurized Dr. Kadambari Narendra
Kumar Jethwani demanding her to take back the case she had
filed in Mumbai. Sri Kanthi Rana Tata IPS failed to properly
supervise the investigation and acted hastily. He cautiously did
not give written instructions and failed to consider the case
thoroughly but deputed team of officers to affect arrest of the
accused who are in a different state. That resulted in illegal and
unjustified arrest of Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani. It
was at his instructions, flight tickets were booked much earlier to
the registration of the crime itself. Sri Vishal Gunni, IPS who was
the then Deputy Commissioner of Police failed to ensure that the
information was thoroughly examined and basic investigation was
carried out. Without doing that he had given instructions to
proceed with arrest of the accused. It is also alleged that without
any written instructions, without any foreign passports obtained
from his superior officers, he proceeded to Mumbai. He failed to
give opportunity to the arrestees to offer their explanations and
allowed his team to affect high handed arrest. It is further argued
that the whole act of investigation on part of these accused was
carried out within a few hours of registration of FIR while there
13
was no appropriate documentary or material evidence. As against
Sri I.Venkateswarlu, the learned Advocate, it is alleged that he
was part of the conspiring officers and was constantly advising
them and guiding them for commission of these illegal acts.
Learned Advocate General argued that in cases of police brutality
a different standard is required and bail cannot be granted and
cited a ruling of this court in R.Vijaya Paul V. State of Andhra
Pradesh1. It is further argued that custodial interrogation of these
accused is required to unearth the conspiracy. Any release of
these petitioners may result in tampering with witnesses. That the
investigation is yet to be completed and at this stage, prearrest
bail may not be granted.
20. On behalf of R2/ Victim/ Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar
Jethwani, serious objections are raised about implicating her in a
false case and embarking upon false investigation. When the
police party arrested the accused, they did not show their identity
cards, and they constantly harassed her to share her passwords
of phones so as to gain control over those mobile phones which
contain relevant evidence concerning Mumbai case which the
present accused/ police intended to destroy. She was constantly
1
Crl.P.No.5293 of 2024, order dated 24.09.2024
14
harassed to withdraw Mumbai case. The acts of the present
accused caused immense agony to victims and they were
unreasonably shown in poor light. They never had regard to the
age, occupations, gender, health concerns of the arrestees. In
such cases, anticipatory bail cannot be granted and cited
Pratibha Manchanda V. State of Haryana2.
21. As against the case of the prosecution, the broad grounds
urged on behalf of the accused and very strongly argued by the
learned senior counsels and counsels are on the following lines.
• On receiving a written information of facts disclosing
cognizable offences, the law mandates the Station House
Officer to register FIR. No pre-enquiry is contemplated.
Therefore, the allegations that FIR was registered in haste
cannot be sustained and cited Lalita Kumari V. Govt. of
UP3.
• That the entire investigation was carried out duly following
all the procedural norms.
2
(2023) 8 SCC 181
3
AIR 2014 SC 187
15
• The rights of the accused have always been respected and
all the necessary things were provided to the arrestees.
• Appropriate search warrants were obtained from the courts
and foreign passports were obtained from the superior
officers.
• After reaching Mumbai, the police team requested the
Mumbai Police to render requisite legal assistance which
was done accordingly. When the arrests were made, even
those police officers were present. Searches were
conducted and material objects were seized and necessary
panchnamas were made.
• Transit permission from courts in Mumbai was obtained
• Arrested accused were subjected to appropriate medical
examinations and they were punctually produced before
the learned Magistrate
• After hearing on both sides, the learned Magistrate
remanded the accused to judicial custody
16
• Duly making an application for police custody for the
purpose of investigation cannot be found fault with
• After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate granted
police custody
• All throughout, the accused were assisted by their
competent learned counsels belonging to Mumbai and this
place
• Bail applications were moved by the accused and after due
hearing, they were granted
• Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani had filed a
petition to quash Cr.No.90 of 2024
• All through the above-mentioned proceedings, Dr.
Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani did not make any
allegation against any police atrocity or any custodial
violence
• This is a very belated FIR. If really it is not a false case, she
would have disclosed it and lodged her complaint way back
17
in February, 2024 itself after FIR.No.90 of 2024 was
registered
• The argument of high level conspiracy is imaginary.
Though, it is alleged that many big people are involved in
Mumbai case so far, they are not made accused in the
present Cr.No.469 of 2024. Therefore, the conspiracy
alleged by the State is fictitious.
• Police doing their own duty and doing it quickly is now
found fault with and that cannot be countenanced.
• The police officers in these petitions were suspended and
they have been ordered to stay within the limits of stations
specified in those orders and they have been duly
complying with them. Despite the orders of this court
directing these petitioners to join investigation, the State
has so far never called them for investigative purposes.
That makes it clear that no custodial interrogation is
required. They are not flight risk. The case at hand falls
within the parameters of grant of anticipatory bail as
expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
18
celebrated ruling Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia V. State of
Punjab 4.
• These police officers served for long years and they served
with distinction and were credited with medals and
commendations.
• The version of the State in this crime is in a way its
professional judgment as to what ought or ought not to be
done by police officers in discharging their duties. At any
rate, the acts alleged against the police cannot be termed
as commission of offences.
• Arguing on behalf of the Advocate who is made an
accused, it is stated that by virtue of the profession an
Advocate renders advice to anyone who approaches him.
Police are entitled to seek legal help from any legal talent.
This professional consultations cannot be termed as
conspiracy and cited R.Sarala V. T.S.Velu5.
4
(1980) 2 SCC 565
5
(2000) 4 SCC 459
19
22. All the learned Senior Counsels contended that the very
registration of F.I.R. and investigation that was taken up pursuant
to it are all legally flawed. On the written information of accused
in Crime No.90 of 2024 the police ought not to have registered
the present F.I.R. in Crime No.469 of 2024 since the same is
barred by law. Learned Senior Counsels for petitioners also
contended that there cannot be multiple F.I.Rs. on the facts and
in the present case such error was committed by the State and
cited T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala6. Further, learned Senior
Counsels take support from Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Abdul Rehman v. K.M.Anees-ul-Haq7. The purport of the
argument is that it is only the Court which entertained Crime
No.90 of 2024 that court alone is entitled to file a complaint for
prosecution of the accused in the present crime.
23. The response from the State, as argued by the learned
Advocate General, is that registration of F.I.R. and the
investigation taken up upon it are all legally valid. It is further
argued, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was considered
6
(2001) 6 SCC 181
7
(2011) 10 SCC 696
20
by a Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Iqbal
Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah8. As per the ratio in the
said ruling, the proceedings of the present nature are valid.
24. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State strongly
contended that Crime No.90 of 2024 and Crime No.469 of 2024
are to be considered as complaint and counter complaint and
they are maintainable.
25. After considering the profound submissions made on both
sides and the statute and the precedent cited at the bar and after
considering the facts available on record in this crime, the
following aspects are to be stated:
26. T.T.Antony‘s case cited for the petitioners was considered
and clarified in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash9 cited by the
learned Advocate General. In Upkar Singh‘s case, briefly stated,
the fact situation was that an incident took place on 20.05.1995.
Based on a complaint received, police registered F.I.R. for the
offences under Sections 452 and 307 I.P.C. Referring to the
same incident, the other party lodged a complaint with learned
Magistrate which was referred to police upon which F.I.R. was
8
(2005) 4 SCC 370
9
(2004) 13 SCC 292
21
registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307
I.P.C. Thus, registration of two F.I.Rs. about the same crime
incident fell for consideration before their Lordships. After
analyzing the law and facts their Lordships held that those two
F.I.Rs. are in the nature of complaint and counter complaint and
they are maintainable. Explaining about the principle laid down in
T.T.Antony‘s case, their Lordships said that after a complaint
was registered against the accused concerning an incident any
further complaint by the same complainant or others against the
same accused concerning the same incident cannot be
considered for registration of another case.
27. In the case at hand, in Crime No.90 of 2024, among other
allegations, one of the allegation made against Dr. Kadambari
Narendra Kumar Jethwani was that she had got prepared a false
and forged fabricated document, namely, an agreement for sale
of immovable property to the effect that Sri Kukkala Vidya Sagar
agreed to sell that immovable property to her. Now that
Dr. Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani in her complaint which
was registered as Crime No.469 of 2024 states that she did not
fabricate any such document and it was all a story and such
22
document was planted into her bag by the police when they
arrested her.
28. The said agreement for sale, undisputedly, was subjected
to investigation and forensic reports were sought for. Steps were
taken by the police as to when stamp papers for preparation of
such document were procured. Assuming for a while that the
said document is not a genuine document, it is in such cases
where a forged and fabricated document prepared outside the
Court was produced in the Court the ratio in Iqbal Singh
Marwah‘s case operates. Explaining the bar contained in Section
195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, their Lordships
said that if a document after being produced into Court is
tampered with then the bar operates and only the Court where
such document was pending or a Court superior to it was entitled
to complain and initiate prosecution. In all other cases where
documents were fabricated outside the Court and thereafter they
were filed into the Court, the aggrieved party was entitled to
initiate prosecution and the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C.
would not operate.
23
29. The present case is not limited to that agreement for sale
alone. According to the State, the entire case set up in
F.I.R.No.90 of 2024 is a false case. For this purpose, false
charge of offence was made with the intent to injure Dr.
Kadambari Narendra Kumar Jethwani. For this, evidence was
prepared in this regard and using such false evidence the police
intend to procure conviction unreasonably. It is for that purpose
Sections 193, 195 and 211 I.P.C. are alleged against the present
petitioners. Thus, the fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is
that a false case is set up in Crime No.90 of 2024 and therefore,
they registered Crime No.469 of 2024 and the petitioners are not
entitled for bail. It is here one must see the relevant portion of
Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure which reads:
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, for offences against public justice and
for offences relating to documents given in evidence.–
(1) No Court shall take cognizance–
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188
(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except
on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or
24of some other public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211
(both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to
have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in
any Court, or
(ii) ………………..
(iii) ……………….”
Except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such
officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this
behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
30. From what is extracted above, it is relevant to see the
purport of “such offence is alleged to have been committed
in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court.” The real
meaning of any proceeding in any Court requires an elaboration.
The word proceeding in the above provision is used in a wider
sense. It is not confined to proceedings that come into existence
only after a learned Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence. It
includes a proceeding held by a Magistrate on receipt of an
investigating officer’s report made under Section 167(1) Cr.P.C.
25
which is covered by the provision proceeding mentioned in
Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. where a person makes a false report to
the police against certain persons resulting in they being arrested
and being remanded to custody and leading to an application for
bail being made by them, the remand proceedings and the bail
proceedings are connected with the false report made by the
person and the offence committed by him by making it. Then it
must be held to be an offence committed in relation to those
proceedings. As the proceedings are related to the offence in the
manner mentioned above, the offence must be said to have been
committed in relation to them. Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is
therefore applicable and no cognizance of the offence can be
taken without a complaint by the Magistrate. A complaint by a
private person cannot lead to prosecution for such offences. This
question at one point of time arose before their Lordships of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M.L.Sethi v. R.P.Kapur10.
However, their Lordships in the light of the case available therein
did not choose to decide it and left it open. Subsequently, similar
question came up before their Lordships. After considering the
entire catena of precedent, their Lordships were pleased to
10
AIR 1967 SC 528
26
emphatically laid down the law in Abdul Rehman‘s case cited
above. That was a case where on a complaint, F.I.R. was
registered for the offence under Section 406 read with 34 I.P.C.
and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused arraigned therein
applied for anticipatory bail and the same was granted by a
learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter the accused therein filed a
complaint alleging offence under Section 211 I.P.C. and other
provisions of Indian Penal Code contending that the F.I.R.
registered against him was a false accusation. It was in such
circumstances, the complainant in the first registered crime who
was arraigned as accused in the second registered crime had
raised a question concerning maintainability of the second F.I.R.
and argued the law based on Section 195 Cr.P.C. Answering it
their Lordships held that the accused in the first crime having
moved the learned Sessions Judge praying for anticipatory bail
and having been granted the prayer of anticipatory bail there
existed proceedings before that Court. Thereafter, at the behest
of the said accused on the allegation of false complaint the
second crime emerged. Thus, the second crime is in connection
with the proceedings taken up before the Sessions Court.
Therefore, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is clearly
27
attracted. It was further recorded that any offence punishable
under Section 211 I.P.C. could be taken cognizance of only at the
instance of the Court in relation to whose proceedings the same
was committed. In the case at hand, this Court in the earlier
paragraphs detailed the facts and legal events concerning Crime
No.90 of 2024. Pursuant to registration of Crime No.90 of 2024
accused were arrested and a competent Magistrate passed a
remand order, thereafter a police custody order and thereafter a
bail order. Thus, they are all proceedings before that Court.
What is alleged in Crime No.90 of 2024 is to be stated as a false
case to frame an innocent then that being an offence effecting
public justice, it is only for that Court or any other Court as
specified in Section 195 Cr.P.C. to initiate a complaint and
prosecute the accused. Therefore, registering Crime No.469 of
2024 at the behest of accused in Crime No.90 of 2024 suffers
from serious legal flaw. It can never be disputed that where the
criminal justice machinery is moved in a wrong way that is an
eminent ground to grant the plea of pre-arrest bail.
31. On considering the entire record and rival submissions, it is
clear that nearly 23 witnesses were examined and investigation
progressed for nearly four months. Availability of petitioners and
28
their social roots stand undisputed. It is not anybody’s case that
any one of the petitioners has any criminal antecedents. The legal
flaws have already been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs.
Therefore, any further discussion on several other aspects
argued and legal authorities cited need no mention. In these
circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the
petitioners have made out their case for prearrest bail. The
observations made in this order are meant to decide these
petitions and they have no bearing for any other proceedings in
the subject matter crime.
32. In the result, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed in the
following terms:
1. The petitioners shall join investigation and in the event of
arrest, they shall be enlarged on bail on each executing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the
satisfaction of the Investigating officer concerned.
2. The petitioners shall inform in advance to the concerned
investigating officers about their travel details if any.
29
3. The petitioners shall always make themselves available for
investigation as and when required.
4. They shall not interact or influence the witnesses.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 07.01.2025
Dvs
30
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6640, 6702, 6734, 6802 and 6934 of
2024
Date: 07.01.2025
Dvs
[ad_1]
Source link