YAKASIRI CHINNAIAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The action of the fourth respondent in not filing a charge sheet, in FIR No.136 of 2013 dated 27.09.2013 on the file of the fifth respondent Police Station, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, the 1995 Rules). A consequential direction is sought to the fourth respondent to file a charge sheet.

(2.) The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Castes, lodged a complaint with the fifth respondent on 26.09.2013 stating that, at 7.00 PM, the sixth respondent, (a person belonging to the Backward Classes), had attacked him with a knife and had abused him in the name of his caste by uttering the words "mala naa kodaka neeku inta bala ichhindi evadra", and made an attempt to kill him; the seventh and eighth respondents had also abused him in the name of his caste by uttering the words "mala naa kodaka rajakeeyalu neekenduku raa"; the accused had tried to stab him with a knife in his stomach; the knife hit him on his head, and he sustained bleeding injuries; and, in the meanwhile, the villagers rushed to the scene of the offence, and saved him from the accused. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that, though the complaint was registered as FIR No.136 of 2013, investigation had not been completed for nearly three months thereafter.

(3.) In his affidavit dated 30.01.2014 the Superintendent of Police stated that investigation has been completed; a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, on 25.01.2014; and the said report is yet to be taken on file. In his affidavit dated 11.02.2014, the Superintendent of Police refers to a Memo dated 25.06.2008, issued by the Additional Director General of Police, wherein the caste certificate of the victim is required to be obtained and the caste of the complainant ascertained by the Investigating Officer from the Mandal Revenue Officer, or the authority concerned, during investigation. The delay in investigation is attributed largely to the failure of the Mandal Revenue Officers to forthwith furnish the caste certificates of both the complainant and the accused.