ATCHUTHANANDA SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed on 25-11-1994 questioning the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent i. e. , the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda in not taking up the investigation in Crime No. 90/93 under Section 354 of the Indian Penal code on the file of Nakrekal Police Station.

( 2 ) THE specific allegation of the petitioner was that the 1st respondent has not taken necessary steps to get the crime investigated only with a view to save b. Ramulu Naik, the then S. I. of Police, Nakrekal Police Station. This writ petition was admitted on 29-11-1994 and notice was ordered on the application wherein the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the investigation in the above crime.

( 3 ) THE respondents having come to know of the filing of the Writ Petition, served a final notice on 17-12-1994 on the petitioner under Section 156 of criminal Procedure Code stating that the case is a false one. Thereafter, the petitioner seemed to have filed a private complaint which was taken on file by the Court concerned and the same is pending trial in the Asst. Sessions Court, nalgonda in S. C 65/93.

( 4 ) THE two W. P. M. Ps. filed in this case came up for hearing before me on 17-7-1995 and the petitioner s Counsel sought permission to withdraw the case after bringing the facts to my notice as the private complaint filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication before the Court concerned.

( 5 ) HAVING suspected that all is not well in this case, I summoned the record relating to the investigation of the crime both on the file of S. H. O. , as well as on the file of the 1st respondent. The Govt. Pleader produced the file relating to the crime on the file of S. H. O. and brought to my notice that inspite of letters written by him on 18-7-95, 24-7-95 and the telegram dated 27-7-95, the 1st respondent has not sent the records. As no useful purpose will be served in further adjourning the case, I reserved the case for orders.

( 6 ) I have gone through the entire record relating to the Crime No. 90/93 on the file of S. H. O. , Nakrekal and to my shock and dismay, my suspicion came to be true. I have also gone through the final report submitted to the Court. The substance of the final report is that while the incident has taken place at about 11-30 p. m. on 15-5-1993, the complaint was lodged with the 1st respondent only on 14-8-1993 i. e. , 3 months after the incident has taken place. Secondly, the petitioner s mother one Devakamma initially developed acquaintance with the 3rd respondent and very often she used to come to the Police Station seeking favours from him. Having come to know that she was collecting moneys from public for doing favour to them, the S. I. of Police started keeping her at a distance and the present complaint was filed only to blackmail the 3rd respondent. He also stated that as per the statements given by the guards at the police Station on the fateful day, the Head Constable in-charge of the guard and as per the G. D. entries, the 3rd respondent was in the police station upto 1-10 a. m. attending to his routine duties. He also recorded a finding that the petitioner and her mother are of loose character. For all the above reasons, he came to the conclusion that the report given by the petitioner is false.

( 7 ) IN this case, the 3rd respondent- S. I. of Police, who is expected to maintain law and order, peace and tranquility in the area, was charged with an offence of attempt to rape punishable under Sec. 354 of I. P. C. as per the registration of the crime by the Investigating Officer. But it now turned out to be an offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC after the complaint given by the petitioner was taken on file by the Magistrate, which stood now committed to Sessions Court for trial.

( 8 ) NOW, I will proceed to examine the record as per the version of the investigating Officer as the investigation is altogether different in case of cognizable offence. Wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document