THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 390 OF 2000 O R D E R: The 1st petitioner is the wife of late Swamy Reddy and 2nd petitioner is the brother of 1st petitioner. In an encounter with the police of Adilabad District, Swamy Reddy was killed on 13.1.2000. This writ petition is filed with a prayer; a) to institute judicial enquiry into the encounter that has taken in the wee hours of 14.1.2000 at Junni village of Gandhinagar Sivar, Ichoda Mandal, Adilabad District; and b) to direct appropriate action to be taken against any erring police officials, particularly, the Sub-Inspector and Circle Inspector of Police, who are impleaded as respondents 10 and 11. The petitioners contend that the deceased was a Ward Member of Kotha Grampanchayat and was eking out his livelihood, by doing agriculture. It is stated that on 10.1.2000, the house, where the deceased and petitioners were living, was surprised by the S.I. of Police, Boath, the 10th respondent herein, and that the whereabouts of Swamy Reddy were asked. It is stated that Swamy Reddy sold his cotton on 12.1.2000 and he went to Boath on 13.1.2000 for collecting the sale proceeds. The 2nd petitioner is said to have noticed that Swamy Reddy and several others, who are members of all party farmers Association, went to police station, and that the deceased and certain others were taken into custody, in connection with Crime No.35 of 1999. The deceased is said to have been beaten severely by the S.I. of Police, and though all others were arrested in connection with Cr.No.35 of 1999, no arrest was shown against the deceased, and that he was killed in a fake encounter at 2 P.M. on 14.1.2000. The petitioners contend that respondents 10 and 11 have deliberately and with a malafide intention, killed the deceased in a fake encounter. Reference is made to the comments made in various news items, immediately after the death of the deceased. Reliance is also placed upon the orders dated 15.1.2000, passed by the District Collector, consequent on the death of the deceased. With these and other pleadings, the petitioners claim the reliefs mentioned above. The Superintendent of Police, the 6th respondent herein, filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 9. He stated that on 13.1.2000, credible information was received to the effect that the Boath Dalam of CPI (ML) PWG Naxalites, consisting of Central Organizer, Suresh and others, were moving along with their followers between Barigaon and Junni villages, within the limits of Itchoda police station, and on receiving the said information, a special party under the leadership of the S.I. of Police, P.S. Boath, conducted combing operations. It is stated that at about 4 A.M. on 14.1.2000, the party came across extremists, and when the identity of the party was disclosed and the extremists were required to surrender themselves, the latter opened fire indiscriminately, with an intention to kill the police personnel. Return firing is said to have been taken place for about five minutes, and when there was silence from other side, the search revealed that one person, who was identified as Kallem Swamy Reddy, died of bullet injury. It is stated that the deceased was involved in as many as 7 crimes, some of them are under Section 302 and others under different provisions of IPC and Indian Arms Act. The allegations of the petitioners that the encounter is fake and that the deceased was arrested, much before his death, is flatly denied. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Home. The death of an individual in an encounter, would naturally give rise to suspicion about the actual cause. In case it is proved, at least prima facie, that an innocent person was whisked away and subjected to encounter, the court would certainly intervene, and the State does not have the unbridled power to liquidate an individual. On the other hand, if the death of an individual takes place, in the course of an encounter, the consequences would be somewhat different. The State has an obligation to protect its citizens, and in the process if firing is resorted to over power the offenders, it cannot be said that the police officials are responsible for the death thereof. Be that as it may, the relief claimed by the petitioners, in this writ petition, is limited in its purport. The first limb is about ordering judicial enquiry. Basically it is for the State to order judicial enquiry, and this court cannot impose its opinion. The very concept of judicial enquiry requires that a Sitting Judge of the High Court is entrusted with the task of enquiry. It is only in exceptional and rare cases that the High Court would direct the Government to cause an enquiry through one of its judges. At any rate, the judicial enquiry, at this length of time, is virtually out of question. Hardly any evidence remains, and for all practical purposes, the enquiry would be futile, even if ordered. The second limb of the prayer of the petitioners is that action be initiated against the persons, who are found guilty. It is stated that in compliance with the directions issued by the National Human Rights Commission, an enquiry was ordered into the matter. It is not known as to whether any report is emerged out of it. The petitioners can certainly follow up the proceedings and secure the necessary material, by filing an application under Right to Information Act. In case, any report is submitted in the enquiry and any opinion is expressed, as to the complicity of any police officials, the petitioners can certainly avail their remedies, in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to secure the report of the enquiry ordered, if any, and to pursue their remedies, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 21st November 2008 PAN