ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the police to comply with the provisions under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. in the investigation of Crime No.12 of

2020 of Tenali I Town Police Station.

This Court has heard Sri Venkateswarlu Posani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents.

The petitioners before this Court are Accused Nos.A5, A9 and A10 respectively in Crime No.12 of 2020 of Tenali I Town Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 324, 143, 341, 188, 120-B read with 149 I.P.C. along with Section 3 (2)(va), 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length on the merits of the matter. It is his contention that a reading of the complaint does not show that any offence was committed, particularly under the SC & ST (POA) Act, by the present set of petitioners. He points out that the abuse if any is hurled at the complainant by others and as far as the present petitioners are concerned they are only supposed to have thrown the complainant to the ground and the 3rd petitioner is supposed to have put her foot on his throat, while the 2nd petitioner hit him with a stick. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, argues that as far as these accused are concerned, the provisions of the SC & ST (POA)

Act do not apply.

It is also his contention, basing upon the imprisonments mentioned for the various sections, which are reproduced in para-4 of the writ affidavit that none of the sections, under which the petitioners are sought be charged, prescribe a punishment of more than 7 years. He points out that as the punishment prescribed for the offences charged is less than seven years, the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. must be followed. Relying on the judgments of the learned single Judges of this Court reported in Konidhana Ananda Sharma v State of Andhra Pradesh1 and Rajulapati Ankababu v The State of Andhra Pradesh2, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. is applicable even to offences under the SC & ST (POA) Act. Relying upon the landmark decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Another3, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly held that in such cases, where the imprisonment is less than seven years, the police should be directed to issue notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. rather than resorting to arrest. He also argued that the offence is a politically motivated

1 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 198 2 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 349

3 (2014) 8 SCC 273

offence and that, therefore, this Court should come to the aid and assistance of the petitioners.

Lastly, he points out that the crime in this case is registered on 25.01.2020. Relying upon the decision in Arnesh Kumar case (3 supra) argues that the decision not to arrest the accused must be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of institution of the case and the same can be extended by the Superintendent of Police. He points out that in this case although crime was registered on 25.01.2020, even by the date of filing of the Writ Petition, police did not think it necessary to arrest the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that the petitioners have given assurance and have sworn to the fact that they are willing to cooperate for the speedy investigation of the case. He points out that the petitioners are permanent residents and would be present during the investigation, inquiry and trial. Therefore, he seeks an order directing the 3rd respondent police to comply with the provisions of Section

41-A of Cr.P.C.

Learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents, has relied upon the detailed counter affidavit that is filed. According to him the police have powers, both under Section 41-A and under Section41(1) (b) of Cr.P