Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P. Naveen Rao, J.
Kanchi Srihari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23620 of 2020
Decided On : 24-12-2020
Police Investigation - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(u), 3(2)(Va) - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking the arrest of the accused under the Act, 1989, emphasizing that the mere reporting of a crime under the Act does not mandate immediate arrest. The court highlighted the stringent provisions of the Act, 1989, and the need for a preliminary inquiry to avoid false implication of innocent persons. The judgment referenced key legal provisions from Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, and Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the mandatory registration of FIRs and the necessity of a preliminary inquiry before arrest under the Act, 1989.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Ward Member in a Gram Panchayat, sought the arrest of respondent No. 7 under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on allegations of abuse and threats. The petitioner claimed that the police's failure to arrest respondent No. 7 amounted to an illegal exercise of power.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the mere reporting of a crime under the Act, 1989 does not mandate immediate arrest. It highlighted the need for a preliminary inquiry to avoid false implication of innocent persons and stated that the police have the discretion to take appropriate measures as required by law, including arrest, during the investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the police's failure to arrest the accused under the Act, 1989 amounted to an illegal exercise of power.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the mere reporting of a crime under the Act, 1989 does not mandate immediate arrest and highlighted the need for a preliminary inquiry to avoid false implication of innocent persons. The judgment referenced key legal provisions from Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, and Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the mandatory registration of FIRs and the necessity of a preliminary inquiry before arrest under the Act, 1989.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court granting the petitioner the liberty to avail appropriate remedy if there is inordinate delay in the investigation or taking appropriate action against respondent No. 7.
ORDER :
P. Naveen Rao, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
2. Petitioner claims to be the resident of Shobhanadripuram Village, Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District. He was elected as Ward Member in the Elections held to the Gram Panchayat Elections held in the year 2019. He claims to have involved actively in welfare activities particularly in his Ward. Wife of respondent No. 6, by name, Kalya Yamini, was elected as Sarpanch of the village. Though Kalya Yamini was elected as Sarpanch, for all practical purposes, respondent No. 7 is acting as Sarpanch and dictating terms in the village. Petitioner challenges the competence of respondent No. 7 in involving in the Gram Panchayat affairs. According to petitioner, land to an extent of Acs. 10.00 is available in Survey No. 252 of the village. Having regard to the needs of the villagers, petitioner proposed to establish IKP centre in the above land and in this regard, a decision was taken in the Grama Sabha of the village. Respondent No. 7 opposed construction of IKP centre and abused the petitioner in filthy language. Petitioner and others approached the revenue authorities requesting them to allot the land to establish IKP centre in the village. The Tahsildar entrusted the matter to the Revenue Inspector and Surveyor. When they visited the village on 01.10.2020 and were trying to conduct survey in the said land, respondent No. 7 came there and stopped the survey of the land. When petitioner questioned him, he developed grudge and abused him on caste lines, caught hold of his collar and threatened with dire consequences. He was also pointing out an unlicensed gun towards petitioner threatening to kill him. Therefore, petitioner lodged a complaint and based on the said complaint, police registered Crime No. 205 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and Section 3 (1)(r)(s)(u) and Section 3 (2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989'), as amended from time to time in the Ramannapet Police Station.
3. According to petitioner, respondent No. 7 is a habitual offender. There was an allegation of committing murder of his relative where he is facing trial. He has also trespassed into a Masjid in Shobhanadripuram Village along with and unsocial elements with a JCB machine and dismantled the Masjid. Crime No. 44 of 2020 was registered against respondent No. 7 and the said case is pending trial. It is therefore alleged that respondent No. 7 is involved in several other crimes and is frequently indulging in illegal activities. He is threatening the people; people are afraid to lodge complaints against him; ventilate their grievances against him with the fear of consequences by such person. As respondent No. 7 is involved in several crimes and facing trial, the action of respondent - police in not arresting him immediately after petitioner reported the crime amounts to illegal exercise of power. Therefore petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent - police to arrest respondent No. 7.
4. Once a crime is reported, the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down detailed procedure how to register the crime, how to conduct investigation, how to prepare final report, submission of final report before the competent Court and taking cognizance of the crime and placing the accused for trial before the competent Court. It is settled principle of law, once cognizable crime is reported, police have to register the crime and investigate into the crime. Such investigation has to be taken-up immediately, collect the evidence and then take steps to finalize the investigation and file the final report. As the existing provisions of law are not redressing the grievance of people belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and atrocities against them are continued, the Indian Parliament enacted t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
