THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1327 of 2001 DATED:19-08-2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, whereby the protest petition filed by the petitioner herein in Cr.No.154 of 2000 of I Town police station, Ongole (CFR.No.2190 of 2001) was refused vide order, dated 05-10-2001. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein and some others, who belong to Scheduled Tribe community were given house site pattas by the Mandal Revenue Officer and they raised dwelling huts and are residing therein. When it was brought to the notice of the petitioner and other tribals that the Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry gave a false complaint with regard to the demolition of the said huts, petitioner and others instituted O.S.No.39 of 2000 and at their own expenses an Advocate-Commissioner was also appointed. When the Advocate-Commissioner visited the spot on 03-02-2000 for the purpose of local inspection, all the accused started removing the said dwelling huts and started abusing the petitioner and others in filthy language, touching their caste. In that view of the matter, petitioner gave a report and on the basis of which a case in Cr.No.154 of 2000 was registered by the II Town police station, Ongole against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (v) (viii) (ix) r/w Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). 3. After investigation, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, referred the matter saying that the said report is false and accordingly submitted the report before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued to the petitioner and accordingly petitioner filed a protest petition challenging the said report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The learned Magistrate having gone through the said protest petition and the final report, submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, came to the conclusion that the said report is correct and accordingly dismissed the said protest petition. The same is questioned by the petitioner herein by filing the present revision. 4. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police officials, only with a view to help the respondents who are all Government Officers, referred the matter as false and the Court below erred in concurring with the said finding of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. 6. Learned counsel has tried to draw my attention to the report of the Advocate-Commissioner to impress upon this Court stating that the said report proves that there were dwelling huts and in this context he has drawn my attention to Section 3(1) (v) of the Act. 7. Excepting the 2nd respondent, all the other respondents are served with notices and in the normal course, this Court would have ordered fresh notice to the 2nd respondent i.e. the Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, but having regard to the fact that this is a revision pending for the last more than ten years, this Court is not inclined to do so. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that a false case has been foisted taking advantage of the caste of the petitioner herein and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, after detailed investigation, came to the conclusion that the same is false and accordingly reported the matter to the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate also rightly concluded that the said protest petition merits no consideration. 9. In the light of the said submissions, this Court looked into the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole. Admittedly, the alleged offence took place on 03-02-2000 and the present complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class was filed on 27-06-2000 i.e. after about four and half months and the same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the purpose of investigation and thereafter, the crime was registered. Of course, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that immediately report was given on 05-02-2000 but the police have not registered any crime and that was the reason why the said private complaint has been filed. There is absolutely nothing on record to establish that a private complaint has been filed on 05-02-2000. Learned counsel, ofcourse, tried to draw my attention to the said complaint, which has been filed as a material paper in this revision, but the same cannot be taken into consideration. If really it is a fact that the said report was not taken into consideration, nothing prevented the petitioner to approach the superior officials and make a complaint as provided for under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C., but he waited for four long months and then approached the criminal Court and filed the said complaint on 27-06-2000 on the basis of which the said crime has been registered. This clearly indicates that there was something which did not come out. It is a fact that 38 house sites were granted to 38 persons, including the complainant, however coming to know that the said grant of pattas was under the bona fide mistake, proposals were sent to the Collector for cancellation of pattas and accordingly notices were issued to the beneficiaries. 10. Coming to know of the said fact, proposals have been sent and suit has been instituted by the petitioner and the same is pending. Apparently, it is a suit for permanent injunction and there is no interim order of injunction. When once there is no interim order, it is always left open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law. Any way, that is a matter which is to be gone into by a competent civil Court. Insofar as the offence falling under Section 3(1) (v) of the Act is concerned, there is absolutely nothing on record except the bald allegation of the petitioner herein that the officers abused him in filthy language, touching the caste. This aspect has been gone into by the investigating officer and he submitted a final report saying that the said allegation is false and the Court below, after recording the statements of the petitioner and others, has come to the conclusion that the said report is to be accepted. 11. It is not as though in every case where a protest petition has been filed, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class has to go by that and invariably take cognizance of the offence. Again, it is for the said Court to take note as to whether cognizance has to be taken or not. Apparently, the alleged offence took place on 03-02-2000 and the said private complaint was filed on 27-06-2000 i.e. after four and half months and this itself throws any amount of doubt in the veracity of the petitioner. All these facts were taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate in holding that the report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer is correct. Therefore, I see no merits in this revision. 12. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 19th August, 2010. Tsy