1. FAISAL ARAB, J.---The applicant was complainant of F.I.R. No.35 of 2011 stating therein that three accused persons duly armed committed robbery and in self-defence he fired at them which resulted in the death of two accused persons. One made his escape good. The police after investigation submitted report before the Judicial Magistrate that the applicant fired at the culprits in self-defence.
2. The Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 27-4-2011 directing registration of F.I.R. He was of the opinion that the applicant exceeded the limits of self-defence by firing straight at the accused persons. He ought to have made aerial firing to disburse the accused persons. The learned Magistrate has held that though the accused persons may have been habitual offenders as per the police record and involved in several F.I.Rs of the same nature but no one is authorized to exercise the right of private defence as a tool to kill any person, therefore, it was held by the Magistrate in the impugned order that the applicant has exceeded his authority in exercising the right of self-defence which resulted in the murder of two persons. In this background he directed registration of F.I.R. Under section 302, P.P.C. Against the present applicant.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that in the investigation it has come on the record that the deceased were habitual offenders and committed robbery and there were several cases against them therefore, F.I.R. Ought not to have been ordered to be lodged against the applicant as whatever the applicant did was in self-defence when he was fired upon by the culprits.
4. The applicant may be absolutely correct that he fired in self-defence but the fact of the matter is that two persons were killed because of his firing at them. It may be a case of self-defence but then the killings of two persons have to be recorded by the police itself when it comes to its knowledge and no near-one or dear-one of the deceased came forward to lodge F.I.R. After registration of the F.I.R. If in the investigation it comes on record that the deceased were killed by the applicant in self-defence, still it is for the Court to decide as to whether while exercising such right of self-defence the accused of the F.I.R. Exceeded his authority. Such, findings can only be given when the trial Court proceeds with the case and there will be a case only when F.I.R. Is lodged.
5. Thus the directions given by the Magistrate to register F.I.R. Cannot be interfered with merely for the reason that in the police investigation of No.35 of 2011 it has come that the applicant fired at the accused persons by exercising right of self-defence. Let an F.I.R. As to the killing of two persons be registered and after proper investigation matter be placed before the trial Court. The applicant shall be at liberty to move a proper application seeking bail.
6. Thus while maintaining the directions of the Judicial Magistrate-X Hyderabad to register the F.I.R.
7. The observations made in the impugned order that the applicant exceeded his authority while firing at the accused in F.I.R. 35 of 2011 in self-defence are set aside which fact is to be decided by the court after challan in the proposed F.I.R. With regard to the killing of the two alleged habitual offenders is filed.
8. After registration of F.I.R. For the killings of two persons the applicant shall not be arrested for one week giving him ample opportunity to apply for bail from the trial Court.
9. With these directions this criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of.