IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.24111 of 2008 Between: P. Sreenivas, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. 18-3-498/A/1, Laxminagar, Outside Aliabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District. 2 V. Srinivas, Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Police Station, East Godavari District. 3 Praveen Kumar, S/o. Santhoshilal, C/o. Raju Gold Shop, Amalapuram Main Road, Amalapuram. 4 Nullu Ravi Shanker, S/o. Gopalakrishna, R/o. H.No. 7-2-25, Main Road, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 5 Raju, R/o. C/o. Raju Gold Shop, Main Road, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 6 Kiran Jain, S/o. Popatlal, R/o. Rajahmndry, East Godavari District. 7 Suresh, R/o. Nellore, Nellore District. 8 Hitesh Raval, R/o. Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 by illegally detaining the petitioner and subsequently with the collusion of 5th respondent and other respondents pouring Acid in the mouth of the petitioner and also for filing the false case against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to take action against the Respondent Nos.2 to 8. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.G.UMA RANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME MR. C. RAMACHANDRA RAJU MR. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: ORDER: The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent- Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Police Station, East Godavari District, at the instance of the unofficial respondents, particularly the 5th respondent, detained him illegally in the police station for certain period, tortured him, foisted a false case against him and poured acid in his mouth forcibly. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the 1st respondent- Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, to take action against respondents 2 to 8. This court issued notice to the respondents on 05.11.2008 and, thereafter, when the matter had come up for admission on 17.11.2008, this Court observed that the matter appears to be very serious in nature and directed the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry and file a detailed counter affidavit. Thereafter, on 21.04.2009, since no counter-affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent even after a lapse of five months from 17.11.2008 and the learned Government Pleader for Home reported that he has not received any instructions as to whether the 1st respondent has conducted any enquiry or not, this Court, while adjourning the matter finally to 29.04.2009, directed the 1st respondent to file counter-affidavit by that date indicating as to whether any enquiry with regard to the serious allegations levelled against the 2nd respondent, as directed by this Court, has been conducted or not, failing which the 1st respondent shall have to appear personally before this Court on the next date of hearing and defend his case. Thereafter, on 29.04.2009, the 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit, stating that one S. Venkateswara Rao, Inspector of Police, Amalapuram, was appointed on 10.04.2009 to conduct enquiry into the allegations levelled against the 2nd respondent and that the enquiry is pending and requested the Court to grant some more time to complete the enquiry and file a detailed counter-affidavit. Thereupon, this Court opined that no enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent in spite of directions of this Court on 17.11.2008 and that the enquiry was ordered only on 10.04.2009, which indicates that the respondent authorities have scant respect to the orders of this Court, and, therefore, directed the respondents 1 and 2 to appear before this Court on 24.06.2009 in person and explain the reasons for not conducting enquiry as directed on 17.11.2008. Accordingly, today, the 1st respondent appeared in person and filed a detailed counter-affidavit. In his counter-affidavit filed today, the 1st respondent explained the reasons for the delay caused in conducting the enquiry stating that the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram, who was entrusted with the enquiry, did not complete the enquiry in time and instead submitted a perfunctory report and, in the meanwhile, himself and the said Sub Divisional Police Officer have been transferred to some other places as per the directions of the Election Commission, and thereupon the then Superintendent of Police directed the Inspector of Police, Amalapuram, to conduct enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner. It is further stated that the Inspector of Police, Amalapuram, conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted his report to the 1st respondent on 13.06.2009, and after perusing the said report, since a prima facie case was made out, the 1st respondent made an endorsement on the statement of the petitioner instructing the S.H.O. Amalapuram, to register a case, and accordingly, on 21.06.2009, a case was registered in Crime No.131 of 2009 under Sections 365, 344, 347, 386 and 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. on the file of the Amalapuram Town Police Station, against the 2nd respondent and the unofficial respondents and their henchmen, and that the investigation of the said crime was entrusted to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada, so as to ensure an impartial investigation. It is further stated that reports dated 21.06.2009 were also submitted to the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned to take severe disciplinary action against the 2nd respondent for his misdeeds and dereliction of duties and also against the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amalapuram, namely A. Subba Rao, for his failure to complete the enquiry as directed by this Court and submitting a perfunctory report. The 1st respondent also assured that investigation in the crime registered against the respondents 2 to 8 and others will be completed as expeditiously as possible and an appropriate report/charge sheet will be filed before the Court concerned. In view of the aforesaid averments made in the counter-affidavit and in view of the fact that a crime was registered against respondents 2 to 8, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed, recording the aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 24th June, 2009 IBL