O R D E R

Dt.02.11.2022 (Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the A.P. State Human Rights Committee, directing the State to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant Sarvasiddi Laxmi, W/o. Bhadra Rao, R/o. Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, to recover the same from the petitioner and further directing the State to take action appropriate action against the petitioner in respect of the serious lapses and violations committed by him and also to warn Dasari Ravi Babu, formerly C.I. of Police, Anakapalle for the lapses committed by him.

2. The complainant before the Human Rights Committee, viz. Sarvasiddi Laxmi, W/o. Bhadra Rao, R/o. Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, alleged that on 13.08.2003, she went to the house of her maternal uncle at Thegada village in Kasimkota Mandal of Visakhapatnam District to see her ailing grandmother and while she was taking to her grandmother, wife of his maternal uncle by name Satyavathi and two other ladies pounced on her, beat her and snatched her gold chain and Pusthelu thadu from her neck. She reported the same to the Station House Officer, Kasimkota P.S., and went round the police station on several occasions. On 13.10.2003, the S.I. of Police, Kasimkota P.S., called her and when she went to the police station, the S.I. abused her in filthy language, slapped her on the left cheek, caught hold of her jacket and kicked her on the abdomen. The Inspector of Police sent her to the Government hospital at Anakapalle for treatment. 3. After enquiry by the Human Rights Committee, the following findings were recorded in paragraph 19 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as hereunder:

“a) Ch. Symala Rao, formerly S.I. of Police, Kasimkota P.S., the Respondent in the case, has assaulted the complainant Sarvasiddi Laxmi, W/o. Bhadra Rao, R/o. Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, in the Kasimkota Police Station on 13.10.2003.

b) Though the allegations contained in Ex-A4 constitute cognizable offences of serious nature and the same were brought to the notice of the Respondent by Cw5 to enquire and take action, the Respondent failed to record the statement of the Complainant (Cw1), not made any entry in the records, not given any written report to Cw5 as to the reasons for not registering the crime on Ex-

A4.

c) The Respondent failed to follow the prescribed procedure in the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the instructions contained in the AP POLICE MANUAL in handling Ex-A4 and the Complainant Cw1.

d) The Respondent has violated the fundamental rights of life and personal liberty of the Complainant Sarvasiddi Laxmi guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India; violated the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal, the statutory provisions and the instructions on the subject and violated the human rights, as discussed supra.

e) Dasari Ravi Babu (Cw5) formerly C.I. of Police, Anakapalle failed to follow the relevant provisions contained in the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and the instructions prescribed in AP POLICE MANUAL when the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam endorsed Ex-A4 to him for necessary action, though the allegations contained in Ex-A4 constitute cognizable offences of serious nature. He mechanically endorsed Ex-A4 to the Respondent and failed to take follow up action according to law.

f) When Cw1 was brought before him with oral complaint that she was assaulted by the Respondent, Cw5 failed to record or cause to record the statement of Cw1 about the incident of assault.

g) Though, Cw5 arranged to send Cw1 for treatment to the Government Hospital at Anakapalle with requisition (Ex-A5), he failed to take or cause to take action against R1 for registering a case of assault.”

4. On the basis of the above findings, the Human Rights Committee issued directions to th