SAMMETA LAXMAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short, but the vexed question, which is a breeding ground for needless litigation arising in these cases is whether the police officer has any discretion not to register the case after entering the substance of the complaint in the prescribed book (general diary), even though the contents of the information received by him disclose commission of cognizable offence/offences?

(2.) Before addressing this question, the facts in each of these two writ petitions are separately stated hereunder: W.P.No.9210 of 2007

(3.) There appeared to be matrimonial disputes between the petitioner's son and his daughter-in-law. The latter allegedly approached respondent No.5, who at the time was the Sub-Inspector of Police and Station House Officer of Gangadhara Police Station, Karimnagar District. The petitioner alleged that at the instance of his daughter-in-law, respondent No.5 used to call him and his family members to the police station daily and abuse in filthy language without registering any case against them. That on 10.01.2007 at 12 noon, respondent No.5 called the petitioner and his family members to the police station, beat them up indiscriminately with a stick and that in that process the petitioner sustained a bleeding injury inside his left eye, following breaking of his optical. The petitioner alleged that initially the police have taken him to a RMP doctor by name Mallesham at Gangadhara for first aid and that on the next day he was shifted to the Government Civil Hospital, Karimnagar, which in turn referred the petitioner to Dr. Harikishan Eye Hospital, Karimnagar. The petitioner has allegedly undergone an operation on his left eye costing Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner is stated to have consulted the doctors at L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad on the advise of Dr. Harikishan, who estimated the cost of further treatment at Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner could not take the said treatment in view of his poverty. The petitioner has pleaded that he and his caste elders have approached respondent No.3 with a complaint against respondent No.5 and the former has referred the complaint to respondent No.4. He further alleged that thereafter respondent No.5 approached the petitioner and the caste elders Sri Sridhar and Sri Eligati Kishan and promised that he will provide treatment to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite written complaint dated 12.01.2007 given to respondent No.3, which allegedly discloses commission of offences under Sections 326 and 506 IPC, no case has been registered against respondent No.5.