Boini Sammaiah v. The Court made the following

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in taking appropriate action against respondent No.5 in connection with Crime No.69 of 2009 registered on 16-03- 2009 under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. In his affidavit the petitioner alleged that when the petitioner along with his friend one Ramadugu Thirupathi Rao accidentally met respondent No.5 at a dhaba near the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, the latter abused the petitioner in filthy language by using the caste name. It is the further case of the petitioner that he made a complaint to respondent No.4, which was registered as Crime No.69 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, who is competent to investigate into the offence, is not taking interest in conducting and completing the investigation and instead, he is pressurizing the petitioner to compromise with respondent No.5. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Huzurnagar-respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he, inter alia, stated that as a part of investigation, he visited the scene of offence as well as the native places of the petitioner and respondent No.5; examined and recorded the statements of eye witnesses. He further stated that the Public Prosecutor, whose opinion was elicited by him, opined that there is no sufficient evidence to support the allegations contained in the complaint and that in consonance with the said opinion, a report will be filed after obtaining permission from the superior officers.