THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.8982 OF 2017

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in continuing the prosecution against the petitioners in spite of the statement made by the respondent no. 4 under section 164 of CR.DC before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad dated 26.11.2016 and the report which is in nature of settling her oodles with his employer under the guise of the report dated 08.09.2016 in FIR No. 304 of 2016, further, without disclosing any offence under the heads of SC and ST Atrocities Act, as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to all cannons of justice, consequentially stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in Crime No. 304 of 2016 on the file of the 3rd respondent police station i.e. before the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Gopalpuram Division, Secundrabad......”

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioners.

3. I have heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that respondent No.4, the de facto complainant, is alleged by the petitioner to have made a statement before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). However, upon verification and as per the instructions received, the petitioner claimed settlement has in fact not been effected. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the basis of an alleged statement of the de facto complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is wholly untenable and devoid of merit. He further submitted that the petitioner’s additional contention, raised in W.P. No. 9023 of 2017, alleging non-service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in violation of this Hon’ble Court’s directions in Crl.P. No. 1114 of 2017, is equally unfounded. The record clearly discloses that the notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was duly served upon the petitioner on 02.03.2017, thereby satisfying the mandatory procedural requirements as laid down by law. Consequently, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have carefully perused the material available on record.

6. As per the record the principal grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police authorities failed to act upon the statement of the de facto complainant under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and did not terminate the criminal proceedings accordingly. However, the police report and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. indicate that the de facto complainant had, in substance, reiterated the allegations forming the basis of the crime. Respondent No.4 has also stated that, pursuant to the intervention of the police and the management, the dispute was purportedly settled, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.22,400/- by cheque before the Court.

7. Nevertheless, the petitioner has failed to produce any legally admissible or credible material to demonstrate that such an alleged settlement was duly acted upon or concluded in a manner recognized by law. The official stand of the respondent police, supported by record and instruction, is that no such settlement or statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. took place.

8. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any conclusive material evidencing an amicable settlement between the parties, it is incumbent upon the investigating authorities to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. The prayer of the petitioner seeking to restrain the respondent police from continuing with the criminal proceedings is, therefore, unsustainable.

9. Accordingly, in view of the absence of any legally tenable grounds or procedural infirmities, the writ petition stands dismissed. The