THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3426 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed for quashing proceedings in P.R.C.No.17 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadepalligudem, registered for offences punishable under Sections 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989, (for short, the Act). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner herein is the accused and the 2nd respondent herein is the de facto complainant in the P.R.C. For the sake of convenience, I will refer the parties as arrayed in the P.R.C. Briefly, the prosecution version is: The accused-Dattu Venkateswara Rao, is the Manager and Correspondent of Jyothi School of Nursing and Pilomath Vocational Junior College, near D.S.Cheruvu, Tadepalligudem. The said institution has hostel facility for accommodating girl students who are undergoing Nursing course. He outraged the modesty of one Godugula Nirmala Sai, a nursing student who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. The victim girl’s father lodged a report with DIG of Police, Eluru, in that regard. However, the report was in turn forwarded to the SDPO, Eluru, who in turn transferred it to the S.I. of Denduluru P.S., who in turn transferred it to the S.I. of Police, Tadepalligudem, on the point of jurisdiction. The report was registered as case in Crime No.72 of 2009 under Section 354 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that, by virtue of Rule 7 of the SCs & STs (POA) Rules, 1995, the investigation should have been done by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed by the State Government or the Director General of Police or Superintendent of Police but in this case, the charge sheet was filed before the Court, taking into consideration the investigation done by the S.I., and hence, the charge sheet is not tenable. The learned counsel has placed reliance on decision in Mallela Peda Venkateswara Reddy V. Sub-Div. Police Officer, Kandukuru[1], wherein this Court, under a similar set of circumstances, quashed the proceedings therein insofar as allegations made under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act were concerned, observing that the investigation of the case was not actually conducted by an Officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as contemplated under the said provision. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that in so far as the investigation done under Section 354 IPC is concerned, there is no such bar and accordingly, to that extent, the prosecution of the case is to be conducted. Rule 7 of the SCs & STs (POA) Rules, reads: “(1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. (2) The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police to the State Government. (3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the officer in-charge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigations done by the investigating officer.” Therefore, by virtue of this Rule 7, the Deputy Superintendent of Police should have conducted the investigation of the case, and not the S.I. of Police. Emphatically in the decision cited, under similar circumstances, it was observed that the investigation of the case verified by the SDPO was not equal to the investigation of the case done by the S.I, and hence, the investigation done by the S.I. of Police was vitiated. The same analogy is applicable here. Therefore, the investigation done by the S.I. of Police is barred by the said Rule, though as per the record it was verified by the SDPO and accordingly, the proceedings are to be quashed so far as Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is concerned. However, so far as the investigation of the case done by the S.I. of Police under Section 354 IPC is concerned, there is no bar and accordingly, the accused can be prosecuted to that extent. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed in part, quashing the proceedings in so far Section 3(1)(xi) under the S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act is concerned. _____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 26th December, 2011 KSM [1] 2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 245 (A.P.)