Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y Satyanarayana vs The State Of Ap on 26 August, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO. 9305 OF 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the action of the official Respondent Nos. 1 to 4:-
a) In not registering FIR against the theft of vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 2 BL 8223, on the complaint made by the petitioner on 01.03.2020.
b) In not registering FIR against the respondents 5 & 6 for the incident occurred on 04.05.2020, in pursuance of the petitioner's representation dated 05.05.2020 and
c) To take disciplinary action against Respondent Nos. 4 & 5;
as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to issue consequential direction to the official respondent authorities to conduct enquiry for the alleged incident occurred on 04.05.2020 at the 4th respondent's police station committed by Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 against the petitioner and to punish them in accordance with law.
The petitioner is an agriculturist residing at Marthadu Village of Mudigubba Mandal in Anantapur District, own an extent of Ac.1-75 cents of agricultural land. He is also an active member of Bharatiya Janata Party and Mandal President of BC cell to the same party.
On 01.03.2020, the petitioner lost his motorcycle (splendour pro) bearing registration No.AP 02 BL 8223. Immediately on the same day, the petitioner has lodged complaint to with fourth MSM,J WP_9305_2020 2 respondent/Station House Officer, Mudigubba Police Station and at the same time, the fifth respondent herein who was on duty on the said day has refused to receive the complaint and further abused the petitioner with foul language. Thereupon, the petitioner has been repeatedly approaching the fourth respondent police station, but they refused to register the case on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to YSRCP party.
While the matter stood thus, on 04.05.2020 at about 6:30 p.m while the petitioner was standing on the road before the water plant in Dorigillu main road, the water plant owner who is also YSRCP party leader Mr. Sravan Kumar asked the petitioner as to why he is standing before his water plant and at the same time, as he was in drunken state, picked up quarrel with the petitioner based on political reason. At the same time, Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 along with other staff of Respondent No.4 caught hold of the petitioner, took him to police station and in the police station, the petitioner was beaten black and blue by Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 till 10:00 p.m and left him on the pretext that the petitioner has been insisting to register F.I.R with regard to his stolen bike.
While the petitioner was detained in police station, wife of the petitioner Mrs. Jayalakshmi and his son Sai Kumar requested the fifth respondent to release him and in turn Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 also beat his wife and son of the petitioner and warned that if the incident is disclosed to any person, they would book a case under SC & ST (POA) Act against the petitioner and his family. Due to beating of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6, the petitioner sustained severe injuries as mentioned in the medical certificate and he was MSM,J WP_9305_2020 3 constrained to admit into Government Hospital at Kadiri for treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Anantapur for better treatment and the petitioner was admitted as in-patient on 06.05.2020 and after treatment, he was discharged on 07.05.2020.
After treatment from the hospital, the petitioner approached the police station to lodge a complaint against the staff of fourth respondent who are Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 for causing injuries on the body of the petitioner, his wife and son. But, they refused to receive the complaint for various reasons best known to them.
It is contended that, failure of the fourth respondent in registering the complaint lodged by this petitioner is nothing but abuse of power and failure to discharge the public duty, being a police official, since Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are Sub-Inspector and Constable respectively. Instead of protecting the law and order, behaved as anti-social elements by abusing their official power. The petitioner lodged a complaint to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against Respondent Nos. 4,5 & 6 for non-registration of crime based on the complaint lodged by this petitioner, but no action has been initiated either by directing to register crime against Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 or by initiating disciplinary proceedings against those two persons. It is also contended that the action of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is against law, as declared by the Apex Court in various judgments and contrary to the law and that failure to register a crime is only on account of support of political party in power. Therefore, the action of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 is MSM,J WP_9305_2020 4 in total violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and requested to issue directions as stated above.
Learned Government for Home filed counter affidavit stating that the action was taken on the basis of the complaint lodged by this petitioner after filing the present writ petition. It is specifically contended that when the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 29.05.2020, this Court directed the third respondent to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to submit a report along with the counter affidavit. In fact, taking into consideration the news items appeared in the newspapers and the factum of the submission of a representation to the Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police by Ex-M.L.A about the alleged incident dated 04.05.2020, an endorsement was made for causing an enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dharmavaram. In consequence of the same, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer has recorded a statement of six witnesses who were acquainted with the facts of the case and as he could not conclude his enquiry, the petitioner/victim did not choose to appear before SDPO/Enquiry Officer so as to give a statement about the incident.
It is submitted in the counter affidavit, that when the writ petition came up for hearing on 17.07.2020, this Court directed the third respondent to record the statement of the petitioner duly serving a notice on him. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, a notice was issued to the writ petitioner for recording his statement. Accordingly, statement of the petitioner was recorded before the third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapur on 22.07.2020. As recording of statement of the petitioner on MSM,J WP_9305_2020 5 22.07.2020 is indicative of the factum of commission of cognizable offence, the third respondent issued orders for registration of a crime based on the said statement of the petitioner for conducting the investigation by SDPO, Dharmavaram Sub Division. In fact, Mudigubba Police Station comes under Kadiri Sub Division, but to conduct impartial investigation, the matter was entrusted to SDPO, Dharmavaram Sub Division. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.240 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 506 r/w34 I.P.C was registered on 31.07.2020 against the Sub Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police Station so that the investigation would be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, as there are claims and counter claims regarding the incident. It is further submitted that necessary suitable action will be taken depending upon the evidence adduced during the course of investigation and requested to pass appropriate orders.
Whereas, Respondent No.5 filed a separate counter denying the material allegations inter-alia contending that, on 04.05.2020 at about 06:30 p.m while Respondent No.5 was discharging patrolling duty on roads in view of lock down, on a call made by Head Constable HC 1674, informed about quarrel between some persons at Dorigalllu main road, near Sravan Kumar mineral water plant, Respondent No.5 along with other staff reached the place of incident and upon observing the police vehicle, two persons ran away from the place. On enquiry, Head Constable HC 1694 informed that one Satyanrayana picked up quarrel with one Sravan Kumar, both indulged in blows and sustained swelling injuries. While so, Respondent No.5 was under the impression that MSM,J WP_9305_2020 6 it is a petty quarrel as neither of them lodged any complaint with the police.
As matter stood thus, on 05.05.2020, Respondent No.5 received phone call from the outpost Police Station, Kadiri pertaining to admission of one Y. Satyanarayana of Mudigubba, instructed Head Constable HC 2328 to visit Government General Hospital, Kadiri for recording the statement of Y. Satyanarayana, while so at about 5 p.m the said Head constable HC 2328 informed Respondent No.5 that he could not take statement as said Satyanarayana left the hospital without any intimation. Later, on 07.05.2020, after getting information from O.P. PS, Government General Hospital, Anantapuram, Respondent No.5 proceeded to Government General Hospital, Kadiri for recording statement, but he could not record the statement as he had been discharged from the Hospital at around 11 am with an intimation that he will take treatment in better hospital. Respondent No.5 denied the allegation that he caused bleeding injuries on the body of the petitioner and it is invented for the purpose of filing this writ petition. Respondent No.5 also denied that the petitioner insisted him to register a crime with respect to the stolen vehicle of the petitioner in pursuance of his complaint dated 01.03.2020 and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition at the stage of admission.
Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, Learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit, denying material allegations while contending that, when a direction was issued by this Court to the third respondent to conduct enquiry, investigate and submit a report to this Court, entrustment of the enquiry to MSM,J WP_9305_2020 7 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dharmavram amounts to Contempt of Court, since the third respondent has disobeyed the order of the Court and requested to take appropriate action against Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6.
During hearing, Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention and insisted this Court to direct the respondents to take appropriate disciplinary action against Respondent Nos.5 & 6 for taking law into their hands in utter deviation of the duty of the police towards the public.
Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Home contended that, crime has to be registered against Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and that, if any disciplinary action is required to be taken, the department authorities will take appropriate action against the person(s) who are guilty of misconduct.
Whereas, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 contended that, the fifth respondent did not commit any violation of law and for failure of the petitioner to appear before the police, the Court did not register a crime and consequently no order need be passed against Respondent No.5 and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
As seen from the allegations made in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in utter disregard of their official duties beat the petitioner in black and blue, detaining him in police station till 10:00 p.m on 04.05.2020. When the wife and son of the petitioner went to the police station and requested Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 to release the petitioner from detention, MSM,J WP_9305_2020 8 they were also beaten by Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and caused injuries. The material placed on record would show that this petitioner sustained injuries in the hands of Respondent Nos.5 & 6, the medical record i.e. wound certificate and the admission card would disclose that this petitioner received injuries in the hands of Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and the photographs produced along with the material also prima facie establish that this petitioner was beaten by Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and despite lodging reports, Respondent No.4 did not take any action against Respondent Nos.5 & 6. On the other hand, allegedly the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 to cause injuries on the body of this petitioner. This is a precarious condition prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the police are not registering any crime based on a report lodged by any person, other than the members of the political party in power, as alleged in the petition.
The duty of the police is to control the law and order while maintaining good relationship with the society at large. Forgetting their official duty merely giving importance to the persons belonging to political party in power, not registering the crimes based on the reports lodged by third parties/persons other than the members of the political party in power is objectionable. But, this allegation is not based on any material. However, beating the petitioner by Respondent Nos.5 & 6 is evident from the record prima facie. The report of the third respondent filed along with the counter affidavit also discloses that Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are responsible for causing those injuries, but no crime is registered as on date. However, it is clear from the allegations made in the MSM,J WP_9305_2020 9 counter affidavit that the third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram instructed Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dharmavaram to register crime and directed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dharmavaram to investigate into the offence. This Court need not issue any direction for registration of crime against Respondent Nos.5 & 6, investigate into the crime, as registration of crime and investigation is in process. Therefore, it is needless to direct Respondent Nos.3 & 4 for registration of any crime for conducting investigation into the alleged offence of causing injuries on the body of the petitioner and for other offences.
One of the requests made by learned counsel for the petitioner is to initiate disciplinary action against Respondent Nos.5 & 6, as causing injuries on the body of this petitioner is violation of fundamental right to life and liberty and such conduct of Respondent Nos.5 & 6 is in utter violation of their official duty being police personnel.
No doubt, causing injuries on the body of the petitioner by Respondent Nos.5 & 6, if really is true, it amounts to misconduct, as defined under Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services Conduct Rules. When a report of Superintendent of Police/third respondent clearly discloses the role placed by Respondent Nos.5 & 6, the conduct of Respondent Nos.5 & 6 constitutes misconduct within the definition of misconduct under Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. But, no disciplinary proceedings are initiated against Respondent Nos.5 & 6 for their misconduct, as complained by this petitioner. Such lenient attitude of the third respondent would amount to encouraging the officials to commit MSM,J WP_9305_2020 10 crimes and conduct themselves in their own way in delegation of their duties. Therefore, I find that it is appropriate to direct the third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Nos.5 & 6 and if ultimately, the disciplinary authority concludes that there is prima facie material against Respondent Nos.5 & 6 to proceed further after completion of preliminary enquiry, they may order enquiry and take departmental action, if they are found guilty in the departmental proceedings.
One of the major contentions raised by Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, failure to conduct enquiry by third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram itself would amount to contempt.
Undoubtedly, this Court issued a direction to the third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram to conduct enquiry and submit report. But, the third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram entrusted the enquiry to Sub-Divisional Police officer, Dharmavaram. Such entrustment of enquiry to Sub-Divisional Police officer, Dharmavaram by the third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram, not only amounts to disowning the obligation of the third respondent, but also disobeying the order of this Court dated 29.05.2020. Therefore, it is left open to the petitioner to initiate Contempt of Court proceedings against the third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram before the Court which passed order on 29.05.2020.
MSM,J WP_9305_2020 11 In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case to direct Respondent No.3 - Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Nos.5 & 6 for their misconduct, leaving it open to the petitioner to file appropriate application for contempt against third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram before the Court which passed the order on 29.05.2020 in view of the prima facie disobedience on the part of third respondent for entrusting the investigation to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dharmavaram.
In the result, writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated: 26.08.2020 SP