IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8672 of 2008 Between: Kankipati Varaprasad Rao S/o.Surraiah R/o.Arumdhatiyapeta, Siddantam, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Penugonda Police Station, West Godavari District. 2 The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. 3 The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru. 4 The Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 Kadali Ramanaga Govind Raju S/o.Chandranna Siddantham, Penugonda Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.R.SANKU Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not arresting respondent No.5 in Crime No.29 of 2008 on the file of respondent No.1 Police Station in connection with the said crime as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and is eking out his livelihood by attending to cobbling work and that respondent No.5, who happens to be the MPTC Member of Siddantham and the husband of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, abused the petitioner and humiliated him in caste name on 05.04.2008, on the ground that he filed a civil suit and obtained an order of status quo regarding his continuance of cobbling business, on 19.03.2008. He further averred that on the complaint given by him, respondent No.1 registered a criminal case as Crime No.29 of 2008 under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 506 IPC. His grievance is that in spite of registration of the said crime, respondent No.1 has not arrested respondent No.5. Under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if an officer-in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156, he shall send a report of the same to a Magistrate to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. This provision thus, enables the police officer empowered to investigate into a complaint of commission of cognizable offence to investigate and to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. The Code does not make arrest of the offender automatic, wherever he receives a complaint of commission of cognizable offence. Discretion is conferred on the police officer in exercising the power of arrest. In the instant case, the petitioner gave complaint only on 05.04.2008, which was promptly registered by respondent No.1. Barely, two weeks elapsed from the date of the complaint. Respondent No.1 is entitled to investigate and before taking measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender, he is required to be satisfied about the necessity of making such arrest. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner obviously intended to put pressure on respondent No.1 to arrest respondent No.5 and thereby scuttle his discretionary power. In my considered opinion, the writ petition filed at this stage for arrest of respondent No.5 within less than two weeks of registration of a crime is too premature and hence, the same is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11488 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th APRIL, 2008 kvni