Smt.Bethi Gundamma v. The State Of Telangana
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 18848 OF 2020 Between:
Aged about 40 years, OCCVillage, Dammapeta Mandal, Smt.Bethi Gundamma, W/o.Bethi Ramulu Housewife and Agril, R/o. Apparaopeta Bhadradri Kothagudeurn District- 507306.
..PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Reptd by its Principle Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad
2. THE SUPERINDENT OF POLICE, Bhadradri Kothagudeum Proper and District3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINDENT POLICE, Palavancha Proper and Bhadradri Kothagudeum District
4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, Aswaropeta, Bhadradri Kothagudeum District.
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Dammapeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudeum District- 507306
6. BETHINI SRINU, S/o. Late Boomaiah, Aged about 30 years, OCC- Agril, R/o. Apparaopeta Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudeum District- 507306,
7. BOGI LAXIVINARAYANA, S/o. Nageshu, Aged about 50 years, OCCAgril, R/o. Apparaopeta Village, Dammapeta lVlandal, Bhadradri Kothagudeum District- 507306.
8. YERRAMSETHI SATYANARYANA, S/o. Narayana Swamy, Aged about 45 years, OCC- Agril, R/o. Apparaopeta Village, Dammapeta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudeurn District- 507306 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that ln the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the in action of the 2nd to sth respondents herein on the petitioner complaint dated 08/09/2020 and for not registering the F I R for trespassing and trying to plough my filed by tractor and abused me by R.6 to R.8 under Sec.3 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and also read with under lP C.
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 direct the 6th to Bth respondents not to interfere in petitioner patta land to an extent of 3 Acres 36 Gts., of land in Sy.No. 319/"1 7 situated at Ivlustiband Village, Dammapeta l\rlandal, Bhadadri Kothagudeum District pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. J SURESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8:
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18848 of 2O2O ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 5. 2.
This writ petition is filed alleging that even though a cognizable crime was reported on 08.09.2020 and a specific crime rvas committed in violation of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,'the Act'), so far crime is not registered and there is no progress in the investigation.
3.
Having noticed that the atrocities against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are increasing day by day and the provisions in Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 rr,,a s made to check and deter crimes against SCs and STs. On revie',v of functioning of the Act bv Act 1 of 2O16, Act 33 of 1989 u,as further amended.
4 .
Section 4 of the Act, 1989, after its amendment by Act 1 of 2016, prescribes procedure required to be lollowed by a public servant on receiving information about committing offence under the Act 33 of 1989 and 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 and can give directions to initiate penal proceedings against public servant. According to sub-section (1) of Section 4, if there is wilful 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. Section 14 of the Act vests power in the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences reported under the Act. 5.
In the case on hand, petitioner alleges that not registering crime and not completing the investigation in the crime reported against a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person is illegal and violates the provisions ofAct 33 oi 1989.
6.
As noticed above, the Special Court is vested \^,ith vvide powers under the Act 33 of 1989 read with provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to deal with grievances. It has power to take cognizance of the crime reported under the Act 33 of 1989, examine the aspect of delay in completing the investigation and filing of charge sheet and whether such delay would amount to deliberate and wilful neglect of duties by the public servant. Further, if it is not satisfied with the conduct of public servant, it can order prosecution and punish him. When the matter is brought before the Special Court, the Special Court shall have all material facts in issue at its command to assess and shall be competent to go into all aspects and to take appropriate decision.
-1 7.
It cannot be said that the remedy provided under the Act is not an efficacious remedy. Thus, petitioner ought to have availed the remedy provided under the Act on the grievance ventilated in the writ petition. When petitioner has statutorily engrafted redressal mechanism to redress her grievance, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
8.
Thus, the u'rit petition is dismissed leaving it open to petitioner to \.\,ork out her remedies as available in law against non- registration of crime reported on 08.09.2020 and a specific crime committed in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1989, and not completing investigation. Pending miscellaneous petitions, il any, shall stand closed.
SD/- K.SAILE HI ASSISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, t u n g u n a ro Urr
3. Two CD CoPies : ?*: 33 Jii3 r',"] H:il": fl?J'i ttl"f # I?'&3J" ot r "
PM FJ
HIGH COURT DATED:0411'112020 + ( iHE SI4 I4c,;
09 it0l/2u0 $ t:
EO -..:-=,-:::=
ORDER
')-'!TCF WP.No.18848 of 2020 Dismissing the WP Without costs.
.€ .J \ -o