Telangana High Court
Siluveru Yadaiah vs The State Of Telangana And 13 Others on 20 October, 2020
Author: P. Naveen Rao
Bench: P. Naveen Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18291 OF 2020
Date:20.10.2020
Between:
Siluveru Yadaiah, S/o. Chandraiah .. Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana, rep., by its
Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.18291 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2. According to petitioner, he purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in Survey No.15, Ac.0.20 guntas in Survey No.1/1 of Rangapuram Village, Manchala Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from Kukudala Jaipal Reddy for a valuable sale consideration and accordingly an agreement of sale was executed on 23.04.2001. Petitioner alleges that the unofficial respondents failed to register the property and some disputes arose between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. Petitioner further alleges that respondents 9 and 10 trespassed into his land, obstructed cultivation and abused him in filthy language on caste lines. He therefore lodged a complaint on 25.08.2020 before the Station House Officer, Manchala Police Station, respondent No.6. The respondent - police failed to register the complaint. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondents 7 and 8, petitioner lodged a complaint with the Director General of Police on 25.09.2020 explaining the events leading to committing of crime under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'). This writ petition is filed alleging that even though a cognizable crime was reported under the Act, 1989, crime is not registered and even though the complaint is filed against the deliberate action of respondents 7 and 8 in not registering the complaint and in not investigating the crime reported under the 3 Act, 1989, no action is taken by the Director General of Police. Hence, this writ petition.
3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that on the incident stated to have been reported on 10.05.2020, a complaint was sent through registered post received by the police on 09.10.2020 and on the same day, Crime No.151 of 2020 was registered in Manchala Police Station and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ibrahimpatnam is investigating into the crime.
4. From the said statement of learned Assistant Government Pleader, it is clear that crime was already registered under the Act, 1989.
5. Having noticed that the atrocities against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs. And STs.) are increasing day by day and the provisions in Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code are found to be inadequate and to protect the SCs and STs from atrocities committed against them in various forms, the Act 33 of 1989 was made to check and deter crimes against SCs and STs. On review of functioning of the Act by Act 1 of 2016, the Act 33 of 1989 was further amended.
6. Section 4 of the Act, 1989, after its amendment by Act 1 of 2016, prescribes procedure required to be followed by a public servant on receiving information about committing offence under the Act 33 of 1989 and the timeline for completing the investigation whenever a crime is reported alleging violation of the provisions of the Act. It mandates to complete the investigation 4 and filing of charge sheet in the Special Court within a period of 60 days from the date of registration of the crime. If there is delay in the investigation and filing of charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has to satisfy the Special Court the reasons for delay in investigation. According to sub-section (3) of Section 4, the Special Court can take cognizance on dereliction of duty and can give directions to initiate penal proceedings against public servant. According to sub-section (1) of Section 4, if there is willful neglect of duties required to be performed by the investigating officer under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, he is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months. Section 14 of the Act, 1989 vests power in the Special Court to take cognizance of the offences reported under the Act, 1989.
7. It cannot be said that the remedy provided under the Act, 1989 is not an efficacious remedy. Thus, petitioner ought to have availed the remedy provided under the Act, 1989 on the grievance ventilated in the writ petition. When petitioner has statutorily engrafted redressal mechanism to redress his grievance, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
8. The grievance of the petitioner regarding non-registration of crime is answered. Further, while the learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is inordinate delay in registration of crime, according to learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the day when the complaint was received, crime was registered. In other words, there is dispute with reference to the date of 5 reporting of crime and registration of crime. This Court cannot go into the rival claims in the writ petition.
9. As noticed above, the Special Court is vested with vide powers under the Act 33 of 1989 read with provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with grievances. It has power to take cognizance of the crime reported under the Act 33 of 1989, examine the aspect of delay in completing the investigation and filing of charge sheet and whether such delay would amount to deliberate and willful neglect of duties by the public servant. Further, if it is not satisfied with the conduct of public servant, it can order prosecution and punish him. When matter is brought before the Special Court, the Special Court shall have all material facts in issue at its command to assess and shall be competent to go into all aspects and to take appropriate decision.
10. Thus, if the petitioner has grievance with reference to the action of respondents 7 and 8 in not receiving the complaint lodged by him and not investigating into the crime under the Act, 1989, it is open to him to bring it to the notice of the Special Court.
11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:20.10.2020 KH 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18291 OF 2020 Date:20.10.2020 KH