2007 PLP 794 (YLR)

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.

1. Granted.

2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3. The criminal revision application has been moved by the applicant on the ground that the applicant approached the District Police Officer, Matiari with complaint against respondent No.3 that his cows have damaged the standing crops of applicant and have caused loss of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs). The D.P.O., Matiari had assigned the enquiry to the S.H.O., Police Station Khebrani. The S.H.O. recorded the statement of the applicant and in the intervening period, the respondent No.3 approached the D.P.O. Matiari with an application alleging therein that the applicant with his brother Qasim has stolen two cows of the respondent No.3. The D.P.O., Matiari again marked this complaint of the respondent No.3 to the T.P.O. Khebrani who in turn had marked it to the same S.H.O. Both the inquiries were being conducted by the S.H.O., Police Station Khebrani who issued notices to the parties. The respondent No.3 did not appear and remained absent on two dates before the Enquiry Officer, (S.H.O., Police Station Khebrahi). The statements of the applicant and his brother were recorded. In the complaint of the respondent No.3 it was stated that the applicant and his brother Qasim Shah have stolen cows. During pendency of this inquiry the respondent No.3 approached the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for registration of case on the same cause against the applicant, his brother Qasim Shah and two other persons namely Malook Shah who is the son of the applicant and Mir Hassan Shah who is closely related to the applicant. Notices were ordered. The Sessions Judge, Hyderabad had transferred the matter to the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad who has observed that the applicant has no locus standi to contest the proceedings under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. as the law requires that if 'complaint disclosing cognizable offence is made out, the F.I.R. has to be registered and it was for the Investigating Agency to probe into the case. However, the learned counsel for the applicant states that till date the application of the respondent No.3 under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. has not been finally decided by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad by which the respondent No.3 has prayed for registration of F.I.R. against the applicant, his son, his brother and another relation have been alleged to have stolen two cows of the respondent No.3. Since the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is cognizant of the matter. I do not want to express myself upon the conduct of either party nor I want to pre-empt the order but I will only express that the Courts under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. pass orders as Justice of Peace. These orders are of administrative nature. The police is not bound to record F.I.R. in compliance with such an order if the complaint made before the police does not disclose cognizable offence. I may further observe that even if the F.I.R. is registered and a person is nominated therein then too he is not to be arrested by the police unless, there is tangible material against him to connect him with the alleged offence as I have noticed that nowadays orders are sought under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. to settle personal vengeance by fabricating false grounds. I have noticed that normally in all the cases in which persons are nominated in the F.I.R., the police arrest them which to my understanding is contrary to the language of section 157, Cr.P.C. The words used in section 157, Cr.P.C. are that the Incharge of Police Station must have reasons to suspect the commission of offence for which he is empowered under section 156, Cr.P.C. to investigate. In other words, before a person is arrested, there must be tangible material against such person with the police officer to connect him with the alleged offence. I am, therefore, of the view that even if the Vth Additional Sessions Judge orders registration of F.I.R., the S.H.O. or Investigating Officer is not bound to arrest-the person named in- the F.I.R. unless there is tangible material collected either by the S.H.O. or by the Investigating Agency against such person to connect him with the alleged offence and. the Investigating Officer may if no material is collected against such person can dispose of the case under section 169, Cr.P.C. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of with the above observations as it is premature as the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has not passed any order which could give cause to the applicant. H.B.T./K-45/K Order accordingly.