R NARAYANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the criminal Procedure Code and unconstitutional and to set aside FIR. No. 165 dated 24. 10. 2002 of Bhadrachalam Town Police Station.

(2.) PETITIONER submits that he studied mbbs and also completed Diploma course in Ophthalmology and he left a lucrative private practice and joined the Government service as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 20. 11. 1989 and intentionally opted for a posting in the tribal area. In 1995 he was posted to the leprosy Control Unit, Area Hospital, bhadrachalam, as a Medical Officer and was also kept in charge of the office of the Deputy district Medical and Health Officer, bhadrachalam Division, as a medical officer of the cadre of Civil Surgeon was yet to be posted in the said office. While so, the Project officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, who is the officer of a different Department and is administratively not concerned with his job is inimically disposed towards him and has been bent upon harming him for the reasons that he did not prepare a report in accordance with his wishes regarding one Dr. Ram Mohan rao, Medical Officer, Kunavaram, as the said doctor failed to discharge his duties with regard to snake biting of two children of narsingapeta Residential School, which led to protests. The District authorities wanted to shift the focus of non-availability of life saving medical necessities in remote tribal areas and as part of the said plan, the second respondent wanted him to enquire and submit a report fixing the responsibility on the said doctor. It is stated that when the petitioner was having dinner on 23. 10. 2002, the respondents 2 and 3 barged into his house and seized his letterheads and took videograph of his chambers and threatened him to be implicated in some or other case.

(3.) PETITIONER further submits that the second respondent immediately summoned the fourth respondent/station House Officer and asked him to arrest him. However, the fourth respondent did not arrest him. It is stated that he has not committed any offence under Section 168 of Indian Penal Code and that the third respondent by order dated 24. 10. 2002 in Crl. MP. No. 167of 2002 stated that he has taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the second respondent under section 190 (i) (a) of Cr. P. C (old) and directed the fourth respondent to file FIR and investigate into the matter as per law for alleged offence under Section 168 IPC.