ORDER
1. This Writ Petition is filed on 25-11-1994 questioning the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda in not taking up the investigation in Crimme No. 90/93 under Section 354 of the Penal Code on the file of Nakrekal Police Station.
2. The specific allegation of the petitioner was that the 1st respondent has not taken necessary steps to get the crime investigated only with a view to save B. Ramulu Naik, the then S.I. of Police, Nakrekal Police Station. This Writ Petition was admitted on 29-11-1994 and notice was ordered on the application wherein the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to complete the investigation in the above crime.
3. The respondents having come to know of the filing of the Writ Petition, served a final notice on 17-12-1994 on the petitioner under Section 156 of Criminal Procedure Code stating that the case is a false one. Thereafter, the petitioner seemed to have filed a private complaint, which was taken on file by the Court concerned and the same is pending trial in the Asst. Sessions Court, Nalgonda in S.C. 65/93.
4. The two W.P.M.Ps. filed in this case came up for hearing before me on 17-7-1995 and the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the case after bringing the facts to my notice as the private complaint filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication before the Court concerned.
5. Having suspected that all is not well in this case, I summoned the record relating to the investigation of the crime both on the file of S.H.O., as well as on the file of the 1st respondent. The Govt. Pleader produced the file relating to the crime on the file of S.H.O. and brought to my notice that in spite of letters written by him on 18-7-95, 24-7-95 and the telegram dated 27-7-95, the 1st respondent has not sent the records. As no useful purpose will be served in further adjourning the case, I reserved the case for orders.
6. I have gone through the entire record relating to the Crime No. 90/93 on the file of S.H.O., Nakrekal and to my shock and dismay, my suspicion came to be true. I have also gone through the final report submitted to the Court. The substance of the final report is that while the incident has taken place at about 11.30 P.M. on 15-5-1993, the complaint was lodged with the 1st respondent only on 14-8-1993 i.e., 3 months after the incident has taken place. Secondly, the petitioner’s mother one Devakamma initially developed acquaintance with the 3rd respondent and very often she used to come to the Police Station seeking favours from him. Having come to know that she was collecting moneys from public for doing favour to them, the S.I. of Police started keeping her at a distance and the present complaint was filed only to blackmail the 3rd respondent. He also stated that as per the statements given by the guards at the Police Station on the fateful day, the Head Constable incharge of the guard and as per the G.D. entries, the 3rd respondent was in the police station up to 1.10 A.M. attending to his routine duties. He also recorded a finding that the petitioner and her mother are of loose character. For all the above reasons, he came to the conclusion that the report given by the petitioner is false.
7. In this case, the 3rd respondent – S.I. of Police, who is expected to maintain law and order, peace and tranquillity in the area, was charged with an offence of attempt to rape punishable under Section 354 of I.P.C. as per the registration of the crime by the Investigating Officer. But it now turned out to be an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. after the complaint given by the petitioner was taken on file by the Magistrate, which stood now committed to Sessions Court for trial.
8. Now, I will proceed to examine the record as per the version of the Investigating Officer as the investigation is altogether different in case of cognizable offence. With regard to the laches pointed by the Investigating Officer, while giving the complaint on 14-8-1993 the specific allegation of the petitioner is that though she gave a complaint in the police station, the S.H.O., neither registered the crime nor took any steps to investigate the crime. Though, the 1st respondent got the F.I.R. registered in Cr. No. 90/93 under Section 354 I.P.C. no investigation has taken place for a long time. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on the file of this Court on 25-11-1994 and the same was admitted on 29-11-1994.
9. Having come to know of the filing of the Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent served a final report on 17-12-1994 on the petitioner stating that the case is false.
10. In this Writ Petition, I am not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent. My endeavour is only to find out what action the 1st respondent has taken having got the crime registered and an F.I.R. was registered by the 2nd respondent for about 15 months and whether the 2nd respondent investigated the crime in a manner known to law. I am sorry to record a finding that the respondents I and 2 failed miserably in their duty and kept the petitioner under suspended animation for nearly 15 months and when the petitioner approached this Court seeking justice, the 2nd respondent conducted a make believe inquiry and served the final report.
11. Under Standing Order No. 35 of the A.P. Police Standing Orders, the 1st respondent i.e., the Superintendent of Police is the head of the District Police force. He is responsible for all matters relating to the maintenance of its discipline and for the punctual and regular performance of all its preventive and executive duties. His work is of multifarious nature and, in doing it, he should keep in view the following requirements, which read as follows :
a. to keep the district peaceful and the public satisfied with the security afforded to persons and property.
b. to d. xx xx xx e. to promote good police public relations etc.
12. The Superintendent of Police supervised the investigation of crime enumberated in standing order No. 40, one such crime being any case of specially grave nature not falling under the above heads. Admittedly, in this case, the S.H.O., of a disciplined force is charged with the offence of attempt to rape. Apart from the gravity of the offence alleged, it relates to the morale of a subordinate officer. As such, the 1st respondent is expected to closely monitor the investigation to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations and take remedial measures to gain the confidence of the public. Even assuming without admitting that the Superintendent of Police need not personally supervise the investigation of the crime, under standing order No. 44, he has to send monthly reports to the higher authorities on various aspects concerning the administration of criminal justice. Part-II of the report should contain the particulars of itinerations, station inspections etc. Under standing order No. 118, the principal duties of the C.I. of Police are to supervise the police work of his circle in all its branches among other things. Under standing order No. 120, he will investigate personally important cases, if circumstances require it or if the Superintendent of Police or the S.D.P.O. orders him to do. He must writ the case diaries in all cases investigated by him. Under standing order No. 120(c), when the Inspector takes up the investigation of a case, he must continue it till it takes a definite shape. Under clause (d), when the Inspector has to leave a case he has been personally investigating, he should record in his case diary the opinion he has formed of the case so far as well as detailed instructions regarding the line of further action to be taken. Under standing order No. 124, he shall forward to his superior officers the case diaries investigated by him. The detailed procedure for maintaining the Case Diaries was enumerated in standing order No. 601. Under standing order No. 603, it is the duty of the Superintendents of Police, S.D.P.Os. and Inspectors to see that the investigations are promptly and vigorously carried out and that the provisions of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. are strictly adhered to. Under Standing order No. 626, the Investigating Officer is entitled to launch criminal proceedings against the complainant for giving reasons to do so, if he finds that the complainant lodged the report maliciously, wilfully and knowing to be false. Admittedly, in this case, a serious allegation was made against the member of the disciplined force, who is expected to maintain peace and tranquillity in the area and in the event of investigating officer coming to a conclusion that the complaint in question was lodged only to bring disrepute and cause harm to the person of a member of a disciplined force, in the normal course, he has to launch criminal prosecution against the complainant to prevent recurrence of such events.
13. Keeping the above guidelines in conducting the investigation, I have gone through the entire record produced before me. The C.I. of Police, Nakrekal having issued F.I.R. at about 20.00 hours on 14-8-1993, at the instance of the Superintendent of Police, in Cr. No. 90/93 transferred the file to the 2nd respondent on the instructions of the S.D.P.O. for further investigation into the complaint as the 3rd respondent was working as a S.I. of Police at Nakrekal to maintain purity in the investigation. The 2nd respondent opened the Case Diary on 16-8-1993. He seemed to have visited Nakrekal on 18-8-93 and in the C.D. he stated that none came forward to inform the facts and they denied the knowledge of the offence. The complainant and her mother were not available. Stating so, he closed the C.D. on 18-8-93 at about 22.00 hours after returning to Nalgonda. It is seen from the file that he was transferred and posted to Yellareddy on 27-8-93 and while getting himself relieved of the charge, he handed over the circle charge to the S.I. of Police, Nalgonda I-Town police station along with the C.D. file. The statements in the C.D. did not comply with the requirements of Standing Order No. 121(d) i.e., the opinion formed by him in the case after investigating the case till then and he did not leave any instructions regarding the line of further action to be taken. This is also not in conformity with Standing Order No. (sic) as the officer failed to carry out the investigation continuously. His successor in office opened the C.D. on 8-9-93. On that day, having narrated the factual background, he closed the C.D. by stating that after getting instructions from the S.D.P.O. Nalgonda, this case will be finalised. The next entry in the C.D. is dated 26-10-93 and it simply says that the A.S.I., and P.C. of the Circle I.D. party could not trace the whereabouts of the complainant and they reported that the complainant left Nakrekal and residing somewhere. This statement is not supported by any material in arriving at the said conclusion. The next entry in the C.D. is dated 11-11-93. The entries are almost on the same lines. I find from the record that the next entry in the C.D. was only on 10-4-94 i.e. almost after 5 months and the entry is to the effect that on his promotion as D.S.P., he handed over the circle charge as well as the C.D. file to the C.I. Nakrekal for further investigation as per the instructions of the 1st respondent. On 2-5-94 on the advice of the S.D.P.O. Nalgonda, the case was transferred to the C.I. of Police, Nakrekal for further investigation. The C.I. of Police, Nakrekal opened the C.D. on 5-5-94, wherein he stated categorically “C.I. Madhava rao, C. Sudharshan Reddy and Anandam have not done any investigation since the complainant and her mother were not available” and in the enquiries made by him it was reported that the complainant and her mother are out of Head Quarters. The next entry in the C.D. is dt. 23-8-94 i.e. again after 3 months stating that the complainant’s mother has gone to attend C.P.M. party work and the complainant refused to give statement in the absence of her mother. The next entry is dt. 19-10-94 to the effect that while proceeding to Nomula, he visited the complainant’s house and came to know that they have gone out. He informed the children to send them to the police station so that he can record their statements and complete the investigation.
14. It is not known how this officer can complete investigation by recording the statements of the complainant and her mother as neither himself nor his predecessors who are in charge of the investigation of this crime made any head-way in the case till then. Two months thereafter, he received a communication from the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nakrekal in his proceedings Dis. No. 1371/94 dt. 9-12-94 wherein the Magistrate directed him to submit investigation report along with the copies of the C.D. file on or before 12-12-1994 to take further action in this matter and he received the communication on the same day. In the meantime, the respondents came to know of the filing of this Writ Petition. On 14-12-94 he hurriedly recorded the statements of the complainant, her mother, two shoe-makers i.e. Devarakonda Veeraiah and his wife, one house-hold servant, 3 police constables and one Head Constable and on the basis of these statements alleged to have been recorded by him, he made entries in the G.D. on the same day wherein he extracted the entire factual background and came to the opinion that the case is totally false and it is a foisted complaint given by the complainant on the advice of her mother for the reasons I have already stated supra. He also recorded a finding that the complainant has no character and filed the complaint against the S.I. of Police for taking revenge and to demoralise him and to take him into their fold to meet their demands. Having come to the above conclusion, he referred the file for legal opinion to the Police prosecuting Officer, Nalgonda, stating that he will finalise the case after taking the legal opinion and after discussion about the incident with the officers. He also enclosed xerox copies of the G.D. entries and sentry relief book said to have been maintained in the police station on the night of 15-5-93 to show that the presence of the 3rd respondent in the police station up to 1 A.M. It is pertinent to note that this officer enclosed entry No. 20 at 21.00 hours at 5-8-93 in the G.D. of the police station to show that the complainant’s mother misbehaved with the S.I. of Police. Admittedly, even assuming the G.D. entry is to be correct, the incident has taken place more than 3 months after the incident in question. The Police Prosecuting Officer without even looking into the record simply gave his opinion that it is a false case on 16-12-94 and the Investigating Officer served the final report on the petitioner on 17-12-1994.
15. All these facts will clearly show the anxiety of the investigating officers not only to refer the case as false, but also throw mud on the complainant and her mother stating that they are the persons of no character, perhaps with a view to safeguard the interest of their departmental officers than conducting the investigation in a manner known to law.
16. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the officers concerned having sat tight over the complaint for more than 16 months, because of the pressure that is being given by the Court to submit the investigating report along with the C.D. and also having come to know of the filing of the Writ Petition by the petitioner, the investigating officer conducted a make believe enquiry in one day i.e. on 14-12-1994 and having received the legal opinion from the P.P.O. on 16-12-94, he closed the case as false. A detailed look at the entries made by the earlier Investigating Officers and this Investigating Officer will reveal that they are at variance.
17. While this being the attitude of the investigating officers, neither the 1st respondent nor the S.D.P.O. Nalgonda who are the heads of the District as well as the division evinced any interest in the investigation of the case. Not even an iota of evidence is available on record to show that they discharged their duties as per the A.P. Police Standing Orders. The inaction on the part of these two officers is nothing but dereliction of duty and abdication of their obligations to the society to maintain faith and confidence of the general public in the administration of criminal justice.
18. One of the reasons given while referring the case as false in the report as well as in the counter was that the petitioner lodged the complaint after 3 months of the alleged incident. In this context, it is pertinent to note the averment in para-3 of the affidavit of the petitioner, “This incident was witnessed by my mother and I immediately explained the incident to my mother. On the next day morning itself at 6 A.M. we have informed the same to Smt. Konda Ramulamma and also went to the Police Station, Nakrekal and gave a complaint there. But the said complaint was not registered and no steps were taken for investigating the offence.” After approaching the M.L.A. and also Ex.M.P.P. they brought the complainant and her mother to the 1st respondent office on 14-8-93 at whose instance F.I.R. was issued on the same day by the C.I. Nakrekal. I have carefully gone through the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent himself and at nowhere the said averment was denied by him. On the other hand, he stated while the Inspectors are investigating the matter, the petitioner in a hurry filed a private complaint before the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nalgonda under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Likewise, the counter filed by the 1st respondent did not disclose the action taken by him to get the crime investigated to find out the truth or otherwise of the complaint and to see that the real culprits are punished being the head of the District Police.
19. As the private complaint filed by the petitioner is pending trial on the file of Asst. Sessions Court, Nalgonda as S.C. No. 65/93, I direct the Asst. Sessions Judge to eschew the entire police record in this case and dispose of the Sessions Case in Accordance with law at the earliest possible time, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of the order, as the petitioner was knocking every possible door seeking justice for the last three years.
20. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
21. This petition having been set down for being mentioned on 20-9-1995 and upon perusing the order of the High Court dated 15-9-1995 and made in W.P. No. 20906/94 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Lakshma Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Govt. Pleader for Home on behalf of the Respondents.
22. The Court made the following Order.
23. After pronouncing the orders on 15-9-1995 it came to my notice that by an Amendment Act of the State of Andhra Pradesh the offence under Section 354 IPC is made non-bailable and it has to be tried by a Sessions Court. While pronouncing the orders, I proceeded on the assumption that it is a bailable offence triable by a Magistrate’s court. The only difference is that in case of non-bailable offence, the crimes have to be investigated directly by the S.D.P.O. or under his supervision with more care and precision, to clarify this position the matter is posted for being mentioned. Accordingly, the order is clarified.
24. Order accordingly.