EUNICE LALNUNMAWII CHAWNGTHU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner argued in person and learned Government Pleader made submissions on behalf of respondent-Station House Officer.

(2.) Petitioner alleges that while she was standing opposite to the main gate, besides statute of lady Justice in the Hyderabad City Civil Court complex, on 28.11.2018 at about 1.40 p.m., person by name, Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, appeared out of nowhere and without any provocation used un-parliamentary language against petitioner, punched on her face, attacked the petitioner again and again and molested her. Petitioner shouted for help and soon some people came and managed to control the accused. Petitioner lodged written complaint in Mirchowk Police Station. Petitioner contends that report of medical examination in Osmania Medical hospital confirmed that petitioner suffered swelling in her left eyelid and on her face. Petitioner alleges that respondent resisted to register the crime, but finally registered as Crime No.219 of 2018 under Sections 307, 323, 354, 504 and 506 IPC. She further contended that on 29.11.2018, the very same accused made an attempt on her life, criminally intimidated, and threatened to see her end for daring to file complaint against him. Petitioner was therefore constrained to file another written complaint. She also sent a copy of her social status by way of Whats-App to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk Police Station, but FIR No.221 of 2018 was registered under watered down provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act, 1989). In this Writ Petition, petitioner prays to issue direction to the respondent to arrest the accused expeditiously, to direct the respondent to register the crime under relevant sections of the Act and give his report within two days from the date of pronouncement of the order by the Court.

(3.) Party-In-Person asserted that only in order to favour the accused, water down provisions are included and there is no progress in enquiring into the matter. She further contended that as crimes were registered and crimes reported are heinous, the accused ought to have been arrested. Accused is very much available and is roaming around, and for no valid reasons he was not arrested. She would further state that as this Writ Petition is pending, respondent could not have filed charge-sheet until disposal of the Writ Petition. She further contended that every provision of the special Act is attracted, whereas watered down provisions are only included in the crime registered by the Police.