Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1007 (AP)

Thakur Pratap Singh v. State Of A. P.

2004-09-15

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2004
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who are husband and wife, abused, Smt. Moole Balamma, a harijan by caste, by invoking the name of her caste and insulted and intimidated her in public view and hence, are liable for punishment under section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act 1989 (the Act ). This petition is filed to quash the said proceedings. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 cr. P. C. by the police do not disclose the second petitioner uttering any word, or doing any act insulting or intimidating the de facto- complainant, charge sheet against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant is that since the charge sheet shows that both the petitioners used filthy language and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences by invoking the name of her caste there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Heard the learned Additional public Prosecutor. ( 3 ) STATEMENTS of witnesses recorded by the police were read over to me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The allegations therein show that first petitioner only used filthy language against the defacto complaint. None of the witnesses spoke anything about the second petitioner uttering any word or making any insulting or intimidating gesture againstthedefacto-complainant. Whennone of the witnesses spoke about the involvement of the second petitioner in the offence, merely because the last sentence in the charge sheet states thatboth petitioners abused thedefacto complainant, it cannot be said that second petitioner also had abused or insulted the defacto complainant in filthy language by invoking the name of her caste or had insulted her in public view. So the proceedings against the second petitioner are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) A reading of the charge sheet shows that the investigation of the case was done by the L. Ws. So the proceedings against the second petitioner are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) A reading of the charge sheet shows that the investigation of the case was done by the L. Ws. 9 and 10 i. e. Inspector of Police, moghalpura Police Station, butnotby Deputy superintendent of Police as envisaged in rule 7 of the SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Rules 1995 (the Rules) which reads:"an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government, Director general of Police,. Superintendent of police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with the right lines within the shortest possible time. " ( 5 ) IN view of Rule 7 of the Rules, extracted above, it is clear that investigation for an offence committed under the Act should be done by an Officer not below the rank of deputy Superintendent of Police. The allegations in the charge sheet show that after receipt of the FIR, the Inspector of Police, moghalpura Police Station visited the house of the defacto-complainant and since nobody was present, the other Inspector of Police, moghalpura Police Station took up the investigation from him and examined seven witnesses and visited the scene of offence and drew a sketch of the scene of offence an house at 7. 30 A. M. and brought him to the police station and issued arrest memo and thereafter, Assistant Commissioner of Police, mirchowk Division interrogated the first petitioner and sent him to judicial remand on the same day and that on 19-02-2002 second petitioner surrendered in the police station, Moghalpura and so the Inspector of police arrested her and issued an arrest memo and released her on bail as per the Court orders and subsequently the Assistant commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Division took up the investigation after returning from casual Leave, and that the investigation and evidence collected establish that the petitioners have abused the de facto complainant in vulgar language. From the above averments it is clear that investigation was done only by the Inspector of police, moghalpura Police Station, but not by the assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk division. From the above averments it is clear that investigation was done only by the Inspector of police, moghalpura Police Station, but not by the assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk division. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the de facto-complainant is that since the allegations in the charge sheet disclose that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, mirchowk Division had verified the investigation and had sent A-1 to judicial remand, it is clear that the investigation was done only by the Assistant Commissioner of police, but not by the Inspector of police, as verification of the investigation made by the asst. Commissioner of Police should be construed as investigation made by the assistant Commissioner of Police, and so it cannot be said that the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules is not complied with. I am not able to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. If the Assistant Commissioner of Police, mirchowk only verified the investigation by inspector of Police, it is clear that the investigation was done by the Inspector of, police only, but not by an officer of the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as contemplated in Rule 7 of the Rules. ( 7 ) IF investigation for an offence under the act is done by an officer below the rank of deputy Superintendent of Police, it is not in conformity with Rule 7 of Rules. Rule 7 of the rules contemplates investigation by an officer not below the rank of Deputy superintendent of Police, as the Act prescribes a minimum punishment of imprisonment for six months for an offence under the Act. ( 8 ) SINCE the investigation in this case was not done by the officer of the rank of Deputy superintendent of Police and was done by inspector of Police, there is a breach of mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules and so the charge sheet against the first petitioner also is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, the petition is allowed and proceedings in S. C. No. 142 of 2003 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Secunderabad against the petitioners are quashed.