Mohammed Naseeruddin, v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1196 OF 2017 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

The petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant and he was shown as accused No.4 in crime No.250 of 2016. In the said crime, A.1 was arrested on 22.12.2016 and was produced before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and he was remanded to judicial custody. The allegation in the complaint was that A.1 gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to A.3 as bribe and on her direction, A.1 approached the other office staff, A.4 to A.7 (the petitioner is shown as A.4) and that all of them participated in the crime. This writ petition is filed challenging the registration of crime No.250 of 2016. This Court, by order, dated 06.01.2017 directed the police to proceed with the investigation without arresting the petitioner.

The petitioner was also directed to appear before the Station House Officer daily between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., until further orders. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is not attending before the Station House Officer in the time specified as above, but the investigation is continuing by the respondents. This Court in a connected matter in W.P.No.699 of 2017 already directed the investigating officer to continue the investigation and in the present case also, there was already direction to continue the investigation. Since the petitioner is working as Junior Assistant as on today, and if the petitioner cooperates, there is no need for arresting the petitioner pending investigation. But it cannot be said that registration of crime itself is bad in law in view of the allegations mentioned in the complaint.

In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the third respondent to continue the investigation in accordance with law without arresting the petitioner and the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating officer. If the petitioner does not cooperate with the investigation, it is open to the third respondent to obtain appropriate orders from the Magistrate concerned for arrest of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 20.03.2017 pln