Sirigiri Kishore Kumar v. The State Of Telangana
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 16229 OF 2020 Between:
Sirigiri Kishore Kumar, S/o Shanker, aged about 40 years, occ Contractor r/o H,No. 1-7-57812, Shastri Nagar, Ramnagar, l\,4usheerabad Ir,,4andal, Hyderabad.
Govern me nt Zamistanpur, ...PETITIONER AND
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Rajanna Sircilla District,
3. The Station House Officer, Sircilla Police Statlon, Rajanna Slrcitta.Ol?ts!!NDENrs Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt4andamus, to declare the inaction of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in taking action against the culprits pursuant to the complaints dt. 9/9/2020 and 151912029 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and u ncon stitutional and consequently direcJ the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein to forlhwith act upon the complaints dt.
91912020 and 151912020 and take action in accordance with Law lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders directing the respondent Nos.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16229 of 2O2O ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2.
Petitioner claims that he has been undertaking civil works of the Government. Petitioner came to know that three crimes were registered on 1-4 .Ol .2020 making false allegations against him. According to petitioner, because of the false complaints registered against him, his image is tarnished and because of registration of illegal crimes, the Government Officials are apprehensive of entrusting civil works to him. He therefore, alleges that by such conduct, the persons who lodged c.omplaints against the petitioner have violated the provisions of SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Act 33 of 1989) and are therefore, liable to be punished under the Act 33 of 1989. Stating so, petitioner lodged complaint on 09.09.2020 before the Station House Officer, Sircilla Police Station, Rajanna Sircilia District.
It seems that the complaint is followed by representation dated 15.09 .2O2O to the Superintendent of Police, enclosing a copy of the complaint requesting him to direct the Station House Officer to act upon the complaint already lodged by him. Alleging in action, this writ petition is filed. 3.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that police cannot refuse to register crime under the Act 33 of 1989 and are bound to follow the time frame prescribed in the Act. Thus, the action of the respondentPolice in not entertaining the complaint filed by him and not
J investigating into the crime reported by him is contrary to the mandate of Act 33 of 1989.
4.
Having noticed that the atrocities against SCs and STs are increasing day by day and the provisions in Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code are found to be inadequate and to protect the SCs and STs from atrocities committed against them in various forms, the Act 33 of 1989 was made. The primary objective to make this Act is to check the crimes as well as to deter the crimes against SCs and STs. On review of functioning of the Act, by Act I of 2016, the Act 33 of 1989 was further amended.
5.
The Act seeks to fast track the investigation, filing of charge sheet and conducting trial. It also envisaged establishing Special Courts headed by Officer of the District Judge cadre. Section 4 of the Act, prescribes procedure required to be followed by a public servant on receiving information about committing offence under the Act 33 of i989 and also stipulates the timeline for completing the investigation, whenever a crime is reported alleging violation of the provisions of the Act. It mandates to complete the investigation and filing of charge sheet in the Special Court within a period of 60 days from the date of registration of the crime. If there is delay in the investigation and filing of charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has to satisfy the Special Court the reasons for delay in investigation. According to sub-section (3) of Section 4, the Special Court can take cognizance on dereliction of duty by the public servant and can give directions to initiate penal proceedings against him. According to sub-section (1) of Section 4, if
there is willful neglect of duties required to be performed by the investigating officer under the Act and the Rules made there under, he is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months. After the amendment to Section 14 by Act I of 2016, the Special Court is vested with power to take cognizance of the olfences reported under the Act. These provisions are in addition to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6.
As noticed above, the Special Court is vested with vide pou'ers under the Act 33 ol 1989 read with provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, to deal with cases of atrocities against SCs and STs and matters arising there from. Unlike other crimes, it has power to take cognizance of the crime reported under the Act 33 of 1989. From cumulative reading of these provisions, it is apparent that the Special Court can go into the aspect of delay in completing the investigation into the crime of atrocity and filing of charge sheet and if the Special Court is satisfied that the delay in investigation and filing of charge sheet was deliberate and amounted to willful neglect of duties by the public servant, it can order for his prosecution and to punish him. Thus, the Special Court shall have all material facts in issue at his command to assess and shall be competent to go into all aspects and regulate the institution and finalization of investigation if matter is brought before it and to take appropriate decision.
7.
It is also the consistent view of the High Courts in the country that after the amendment to Act 33 ol i989 by Act 1 of 2076, the Special Court is vested with vide powers including power to take cognizance of
the crime reported under the Act 33 of 1989."(Achla D Sapre Vs Asha MahilLarl; Amarendra Nath Tewary Vs Basana Lohar2; and Sumit Vs State of UP3.) 8.
It cannot be said that the remedy provided under the Act is not an efficacious remedy. When petitioner has statutorily engrafted redressal mechanism to redress his grievance, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
9.
Thus, Ieaving it open to petitioner to work out remedies available in law against non registration of crime reported under the Act 33 of 1989, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, sha ll stand closed.
2016 SCC online Chh 294 CRR 3244 of 201 8/CRAN 1 504 of 2019 Calcutta HC dt 22-5-2019 3- "App U/S 482 No 491of 2020 Allahabad HC dt 5-3-2020 o'.s,3+1il+Rtbt5"Jlfl //rRUE coPY// C"h Cir,-- SECTION OFFICER To 1.
2.
3.
MBC One CC to Sri Thimmajipeta Satyanarayana Advocate-tOPucl Two cCs to GP for Hor", iid['6o*riiT6r. ii'r" sf ie of T'elangaha (oUT) Two CD Copies \.
HIGH COURT DATED: 3010912020 I4 I4'
S $ c Jc i) / zo 13 ocT2020 t D€ T \
ORDER
WP.No.16229 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .fuJ t DI