Point of law: Provisions of Cr.P.C. and the scope and objects of the Act, 1989, it cannot be said that merely because crime is reported under the Act, straightaway accused has to be arrested.

ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for 5th respondent.

2. Petitioner is working as Journalist in Vaartha Telugu vernacular daily. He belongs to Scheduled caste (Lambada) community. On 08.12.2020 news item was reported in Vaartha newspaper based on his inputs alleging that fifth respondent, who is a member of Legislative Assembly representing Patancheru Assembly constituency, and his henchmen grabbed prime lands, adjacent to main roads and pointed out lapses of the local administration in restraining the alleged grabbing of lands by fifth respondent and his henchmen. Petitioner alleges that infuriated with said report, fifth respondent telephoned the petitioner and threatened him with dire consequences, abused him and his parents using filthy language and in the name of his caste in an uncivilized manner and directed him to appear before him. The entire conversation was recorded. Concerned with the kind of threat exerted on the petitioner, use of abusive language on caste lines and threatening him with dire consequences, petitioner lodged complaint with the respondent-police. On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, crime No. 331 of 2020 was registered on 08.12.2020 under Sections 448, 504, 506 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act, 1989) in Ameenpur Police Station.

3. In this writ petition, petitioner alleges that so far, Police have not arrested the fifth respondent and there is no progress made in the crime reported by the petitioner. Fifth respondent committed heinous crime against a Journalist and stringent action has to be taken against him. Petitioner alleges that if there is delay in arrest of fifth respondent, it would vitiate whole process of investigation, undermine the confidence reposed by people belonging to Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes in the State. Petitioner challenges the inaction of respondent-police in taking immediate action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner to arrest 5th respondent. In the writ petition paper book petitioner enclosed photographs showing damage caused to his property by henchmen of 5th respondent, demolition of illegal constructions made in response to his report published in the Vaartha Daily Newspaper and also enclosed C.D. in which the alleged conversation between 5th respondent and petitioner was recorded.

4.1. Extensive submissions are made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a fit case, where the Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the respondent-police to forthwith arrest the fifth respondent. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, fifth respondent has criminal antecedents. He submits that photographs enclosed to the writ petition would demonstrate that on the issue covered by him and published in the newspaper, the police have taken action to demolish the illegal structures. This was not liking to the fifth respondent and his henchmen and therefore, they have resorted to coercive action on petitioner, his relatives and family members and there is threat to life of the petitioner and his family members.

4.2. By placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India [W.P.(Crl.) No. 130 of 2020, dated 19.05.2020], learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the constitution entrusts duty on the Constitutional Courts to protect the Fundamental Rights of the Citizens and more particularly journalists and that in the instant case also, the Fundamental Right guaranteed on the citizen, who is a journalist to express his opinion as freelance Journalist reporting the alleged illegal and unauthorized occupation of public properties by the fifth respondent and his henchmen, is threatened and the petitioner was assaulted w