ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not registering the F.I.R against the culprits on the basis of the complaint dated 10.06.2019 by this petitioner, disclosing the information about commission of cognizable offence is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law rendered by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P1.

2. The petitioner is working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Government Veterinary Dispensary, Vatticherukuru. There are some disputes between him and his wife, and his wife foisted a false case against this petitioner in the year 2012, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She has been living with her parents at Gayatrinagar, KVP Colony, Guntur since, 2012. As not satisfied with the criminal litigation, she also filed an application against the petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming various reliefs and a petition for grant of divorce dissolving their marriage. In the process of filing the complaints, she is creating unnecessary troubles by driving him to Police Stations, Courts and threatened him with dire consequences.

3. On 10.06.2019, while he was discharging his duties as Government servant in Government Veterinary Dispensary, she came to his work place, abused him by using filthy language and deterred him from discharging his official duties as public servant

1 2014 (2) SCC Page 1

by using force. She humiliated the petitioner in the presence of colleague employees and others who came to the dispensary for treatment of their animals. Obstructing the petitioner from discharging his official duties by using force constitutes the offence punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. But, the police did not register any crime against the culprit on the basis of the information submitted by this petitioner to the 5th respondent-S.H.O., Vatticherukuru Police Station, Guntur District. The inaction on the part of the 5th respondent is violative of principles laid down in Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P (referred supra). Even other wise, it is the duty of the Police to register the complaint as F.I.R as it is disclosing information about commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, non-registration of crime against the culprits by the 5th respondent is nothing but disowning their public duty being public servants and requested to pass appropriate order.

4. During hearing, Sri K.Chidambaram, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition.

5. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader for Home basing on the written instructions dated 08.08.2019, contended that on receipt of complaint, a General Diary entry on 10.06.2019 itself was made, and the enquiry reveals that the contents of the complaint appeared to be non-cognizable offence in nature, attracting the provisions of Section 500 I.P.C. It is further stated that a complaint was received in Spandana programme by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban and the same was endorsed to the 5th respondent. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and submitted a detailed report, treating the case as ‘false’. Thus, the 5th respondent is not required to register any crime, hence, requests to dismiss the petition.

6. As seen from the material on record, more particularly, the allegations made in the complaint dated 10.06.2019, while the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in Government Veterinary Dispensary, Vatticherukuru, his wife abused him and deterred him from discharging his official duties as public servant by using force, the allegation would attract an offence punishable under Section 353 of I.P.C prima facie. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 353 of I.P.C is a cognizable offence and non-registration of F.I.R by the 5th respondent against the culprits for a cognizab