Allowed

N. Aseervadam v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC2 Dec 2010WP/9106/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court found that a police officer delayed registering a complaint under the SC/ST Act and misled the Court with false dates. Directions were issued to initiate disciplinary action against the officer, initiate criminal proceedings for perjury, and ensure the investigation is completed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings initiated against the police officer for perjury; disciplinary action directed against the officer; investigation directed to be completed within two months.

N. Aseervadam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.9106 of 2010

¶3

rd Dated 3 August, 2010

¶4

Between: N.Aseervadam …PetitionerPetitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, and 4 others. …Respondents

¶5

…PetitionerPetitioner

¶6

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.N.Pramod Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr.P.Chaitanya for Mrs.N.Anjanadevi

¶7

The Court made the following:

¶8

Order:

¶9

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4, in registering crime and making investigation in pursuance of complaint, dated 11-03-2010, made by the petitioner against respondent No.5, for commission of the offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

I have heard Sri N.Pramod, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri P.Chaitanya, learned Counsel representing Smt.N.Anjanadevi, learned Counsel for respondent No.5.

¶11

The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, is Secretary of a Society viz., Vani Educational Society and respondent No.5 is a member thereof. In connection with the affairs of the said Society, certain differences appear to have arisen between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and a civil proceeding instituted by the said society against respondent No.5 is also stated to be pending in the District Court, Eluru, West Godavari District. The

¶12

petitioner alleged that on 08-03-2010, when the members of the said Society were returning from the District Court, Eluru, they were allegedly waylaid by respondent No.5 and others and the petitioner was abused in his caste name apart from being threatened to be implicated in false cases by proclaiming that respondent No.5 is related to one Kode Durga Prasad, Additional DGP at Hyderabad. The petitioner further alleged that on 09-03-2010, at about 12 noon, when he was returning from the Court, respondent No.5 rushed towards him in his car, by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, and applied the brake suddenly by threatening to drive the car over him and abused him again by calling in his caste name in the presence of the public and threatened him with dire consequences. The petitioner further alleged that the wife of respondent No.5 also accompanied him and she has also joined her husband in abusing the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner sent a report against respondent No.5 and his wife through registered post with acknowledgment due on 12-03-2010 to respondent Nos.2 to 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that no case has been registered by the time of filing of this Writ Petition.

¶14

This Writ Petition initially came up for admission on

¶15

21-04-2010 and it was adjourned on three occasions before it came up on 07-06-2010, when the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions stated that the petitioner’s complaint was not received by respondent No.4. When the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out, at the hearing, that he has filed

¶16

acknowledgments evidencing receipt of the complaint, by respondent No. 4, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has sought for an adjournment for filing the counter-affidavit on that aspect. Accordingly, this Court passed the following order:

¶17

“Learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s complaint has not been received by respondent No.4.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the acknowledgments evidencing receipt of the complaints by respondent No.4 on 12-032010.

¶19

Learned Asst. Government Pleader for Home, seeks adjournment for filing counteraffidavit in this regard.

¶20

Smt.N.Anjana Devi, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No.5 and seeks time for filing counter-affidavit Post on 21-06-2010.”

¶21

On 26-07-2010, when this case was taken up for hearing, no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed before this Court, the FIR, which shows that a crime was registered on 11-06-2010 on the complaint, dated 11-03-2010, said to have been received by respondent No.4 on 11-062010. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made a serious complaint that the original acknowledgements received by him clearly show that all the Police Officers including respondent No.4 have received the complaint on 12-03-2010 itself and that mentioning ‘11-06-2010’ as the date of receipt of information will be fatal to his client’s case. Thereupon, the learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for an adjournment for

¶22

filing the counter-affidavit and production of record.

¶23

Today, at the hearing, a counter-affidavit was presented to the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The said counteraffidavit has been sworn to by Sri V.Ravi Kumar, the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Law and Order, Police Station, Eluru. It is inter alia admitted therein that he has received complaint, dated 11-03-2010, which was sent to him through registered post with acknowledgment due, wherein serious allegations have been made against respondent No.5 and his wife on 12-03-2010. He further stated that as the offence has occurred in the limits of III Town Police Station, he has entered the same in the General Diary on the same day and caused discreet enquiries about the petitioner/complainant and that though he tried to secure the petitioner for registration of a case, till date his whereabouts were not known. Respondent No.4 further averred that as the contents of the petitioner’s complaint are cognizable in nature, he has waited for the petitioner till 11-06-2010 and based on the complaint, Crime No.127 of 2010 was registered on the file of the II Town Police Station, Eluru, on 11-06-2010 and subsequently, on the point of jurisdiction, the said CD file was transferred to the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Eluru. It is further stated that as per the instructions issued by the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru, on 11-06-2010, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru Sub-Division, has taken up the investigation.

¶24

A careful examination of the conduct of respondent No.4 reveals that he has been making

¶25

attempt after attempt to hide his illegal actions. In the first place, he avoided filing a counter-affidavit though the case was coming up from 21^st April, 2010. On 07-06-2010, respondent No.4 sought to mislead this Court by submitting through the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner’s complaint was not received at all. When the learned Counsel for the petitioner has shown proof of acknowledgment of the complaint, obviously, left with no other option, he has registered the crime on 11-06-2010. While registering the said crime, he has shown in the FIR that he has received the complaint on 11-06-2010. Even on 26-07-2010, respondent No.4 failed to file a counter-affidavit. When the above illegality regarding the date of receipt of the petitioner’s complaint mentioned in the FIR was pointed out, he has come out with the counter-affidavit wherein he has categorically admitted that the complaint was received on 12-03-2010 itself. What is perplexing is that having received the complaint on 12-03-2010, he has not only reported to this Court on 07-06-2010 that he has received the complaint on 11-06-2010 but has also mentioned the said date as the date of receipt of the complaint in the FIR. Respondent No.4 has confounded his acts by stating in column No.8 of the FIR as “Today a complaint received from registered post.” Having been pushed to a corner, he had come out with the admission in his counter-affidavit that he has received the complaint on 12-03-2010 itself. Respondent No.4 has sought to explain the reason, for delay in registration of the petitioner’s complaint, as the petitioner’s whereabouts were not known and therefore,

¶26

he has waited for his presence after making discreet enquiries. This explanation cannot be countenanced in the face of Section 154 Cr.P.C., which enjoins on the Police to register the crime, if the information received by him discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, there was absolutely no need for respondent No.4 to secure the presence of the petitioner for registration of the crime. Even assuming that he was labouring under a misapprehension that the presence of the complainant was necessary for registration of a case, he did not explain the reason why he has registered the case subsequently on

¶27

11-06-2010 even without the petitioner appearing before him.

¶28

Another aspect, which calls respondent No.4’s bluff, is the date of entry in the General Diary. In his counter-affidavit, he has specifically mentioned that he has entered the complaint in the General Diary on 1203-2010 itself. In column 3 (c) of the FIR, he has shown that the entry in the General Diary was made at 8 pm., on 11-06-2010. Respondent No.4 has thus made a palpably false statement in his affidavit on this aspect.

¶29

By failing to act in accordance with law in registering the crime immediately on receipt of the complaint on 12-03-2010, obviously for extraneous reasons, respondent No.4 kept on committing mistake after mistake and in that process, he has thoroughly mislead this Court by making contradictory statements and filing a false counter-affidavit in this Court. I have no doubt in my mind that respondent No.4, who has not only failed to discharge the statutory duty cast on him under Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C., has tried to mislead this

¶30

Court. Respondent No.4, being a member of a disciplinary force and is charged with the duty of registering cases on receipt of information of commission of cognizable offences utterly failed in discharging his duties. His conduct does not behove the office he holds. His brazen attempt to feed this Court with blatantly false information has the effect of polluting the stream of justice. Respondent No.4 is prima facie guilty of perjury.

¶31

The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, is directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings for perjury and other related offences against Sri V.Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Law and Order Police Station, Eluru, by following the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶32

Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the above conduct of the petitioner, initiate disciplinary action against him and report to the Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

Inasmuch as a case has already been registered and investigation is stated to have been entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru Sub-division, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the investigation officer to complete the investigation and file appropriate report/charge sheet within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.11765 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for

¶35

interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J

¶36

Dated 3^rd August, 2010 lur

N. Aseervadam v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Aseervadam v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Papireddigari Yashodamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

T.Laxmi Bai Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Principal

Sk. Vasantha Vs TheMandal Revenue Officer

S. Upesh Singh Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally

M/s. Stanley Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Koneti Ramakotaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh