Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 968 (AP)

Seshagiri Rao v. State Of A. P.

2000-12-22

K.B.SIDDAPPA

body2000
K. B. SIDDAPPA, J. ( 1 ) A-1 to A-14 are the petitioners. They filed application under Section 190 Cr. P. C. to dismiss the complaint as far as they are concerned. The ground taken is that the incident occurred on 15-7-1986. The complaint was filed on 11-5-1988. As per section 53 of A. P. (Telangana Area) District police Act, 1859 the complaint should be filed within three months. According to them, evidently the complaint in this case was filed as aforesaid on 11-5-1988 i. e. , after the lapse of nearly two years. ( 2 ) THIS contention was not accepted by the Court below and dismissed the application. ( 3 ) HENCE the Revision. ( 4 ) MR. C. Padmanabha Reddy, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegation in the complaint ex facie is against A-8 to A-12. It is alleged that they dragged the complainant and her saree and underwear were removed and she was made naked. There is no allegation against other officers who went to give protection on the request of the electricity officials i. e. , A-15 to A-19. The complainant and L. Ws. 2 and 4 were objecting to the drawing of electric service wire to give connection to the house of A-1. They were objecting on the ground that the vacant site over which they attempted to draw the service wire belongs to them and the accused cannot trespass into their site and draw electric wire across their site. While giving protection and while the accused were discharging their official duty, this incident occurred. There is no question of Section 354 IPC being attracted in this case because women constables are alleged to have made the complainant naked. Not only that the other officers went there to give protection in discharge of their official duties. Therefore, according to him the protection of Section 53 of the Police Act is available to them. ( 5 ) I am unable to agree with this contention. The main ground on which the complaint and L. Ws. 2 and 4 were objecting to the drawing of electric wire is that the site over which the wire was sought to be drawn belong to them and the accused cannot take the wire across their site. In such a case, the officials involved should have enquired as to the ownership and take appropriate action. 2 and 4 were objecting to the drawing of electric wire is that the site over which the wire was sought to be drawn belong to them and the accused cannot take the wire across their site. In such a case, the officials involved should have enquired as to the ownership and take appropriate action. In the guise of giving protection, the accused cannot trespass into the property of the complainant and L. Ws. 2 and 4 and claim immunity, particularly when the owners were objecting or drawing of the electric wire. It is none of the business and duty of women constables to strip the complainant naked. This is no part of their officials duty for seeking the assistance of Section 53 of the act. The lower Court considered all these aspects and rightly dismissed the petition. There are no grounds to interfere. ( 6 ) HENCE, the Criminal Revision case is dismissed.