THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.15567 of 2007 Between: 1. Dr. L.S.S.Reddy S/o. Sri L.Govind Reddy, Principal, K.L. College of Engineering, Vaddeswaram, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, and others. PETITIONERS And 1. Additional Director General of Police, CID, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M. Sudheer Kumar Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Home The Court made the following order: ORDER: 1. The Petitioners, members of staff of K.L.College of Engineering, Vaddeswaram, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, have filed this Writ Petition to refrain the Respondents from compelling them to produce the records relating to the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the 3rd Respondent by invoking the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and to declare the action of the Respondents in interfering with their duties as employees of the said college, as illegal. 2. Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are working as the Principal, Professor and Lecturer, respectively, and the Petitioners 4, 5 and 6 are working as Junior Accountant, Maintenance Supervisor and Security Officer, respectively in the said college. 3. The 3rd Respondent was working as a Senior Mechanic in the said college. He belongs to scheduled caste community. It appears that disciplinary action was initiated against him on certain charges of misconduct. A retired Assistant Commissioner for Labour was initially appointed as an Enquiry Officer and based on the Enquiry Report a Show Cause Notice dated 07.08.2006 was issued proposing to remove him from service. On an appeal filed by the 3rd Respondent, the Director of Technical Education by Proceedings dated 24.11.2006 found fault with an outsider (Retired Assistant Commissioner for Labour) conducting enquiry and directed the management to conduct de novo enquiry. Pursuant to the said orders, the Chairman of the college by Proceedings dated 29.11.2006 constituted a Three Member Committee to conduct enquiry. The 2nd Petitioner was the Convener of the said committee. It appears that the 3rd Respondent wanted to engage an Advocate to represent him and on refusal to grant permission, he filed W.P.No.581 of 2007 in this Court and obtained stay of further proceedings in the enquiry. Around the same time, the 3rd Respondent filed a complaint against the 2nd Petitioner alleging that the 2nd Petitioner abused him in the name of his caste. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.114 of 2007 of Tadepalli Police Station for the Offences under Section 3 (1)(k) of S.C. & S.Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Later, the Police referred the complaint as false and filed a Report dated 30.09.2007 before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. 4. The 3rd Respondent also lodged a complaint dated 23.05.2007 with the Chairman, A.P. State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (State Commission, in brief) alleging that he was subjected to harassment. One, Seelam Prabhudas, Founder President, Indian Christian Advocates Forum for Social Justice, Mangalagiri, Guntur District addressed a representation to the National S.C./S.Ts. Commission to conduct an enquiry into the harassment meted out to the 3rd Respondent. The said Representation was forwarded to the State Commission. The Secretary of the State Commission thereupon addressed a letter dated 18.05.2007 to the Inspector General of Police, PCR Cell, CID, Hyderabad for necessary action and report. In turn, the 2nd Respondent viz., Inspector of Police, CID, Guntur was instructed to enquire into the matter and send a Report. The 2nd Respondent issued the impugned notice dated 17.07.2007 purportedly under Section 160 Cr.P.C./175 I.P.C. calling upon the petitioners to appear in person before him along with record of enquiry report prepared against the 3rd Respondent observing that non-compliance of the Notice is punishable under Section 175 I.P.C. 5. Aggrieved by the said notice summoning the Petitioners, this Writ Petition has been filed contending that the Respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to compel production of records relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 3rd Respondent by invoking the provisions of Cr.P.C. 6. The 2nd Respondent filed a counter stating that Additional Director General of Police, CID, Andhra Pradesh vide Memo C.No.1556/C18/CID/2007, dated 05.06.2007 instructed him to enquire into the matter in pursuance of the representation submitted by the aforesaid Seelam Prabhudas and in order to conduct enquiry, he issued the impugned Notice on 17.07.2007 calling upon the petitioners for their appearance for the purpose of enquiry. In the additional affidavit it is stated that the impugned notice was issued only for the purpose of submitting report to the State Commission. It is stated therein that the State Commission functions as a Civil Court by virtue of the powers vested under Section 11 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Commission Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act’) for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examine him on oath and other powers enumerated therein. The Commission is also empowered to requisition such assistance as may be required from any Department of the Government for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Act. Since the matter was entrusted to the Inspector General of Police for taking action, the 2nd Respondent initiated the required enquiry in order to send a report to the State Commission. The 2nd Respondent denied that he was meddling with the departmental proceedings initiated against the 3rd Respondent. It is however admitted therein that the complaint registered in Crime No.114 of 2007 against the 2nd Petitioner was referred as false and a Report was also filed to the said effect in the Court on 18.01.2008. 7. The 3rd Respondent filed a Counter. While reiterating the facts, it is stated that the Police is only investigating the harassment meted out to him and that the action taken by the 2nd Respondent for conducting enquiry cannot be faulted. 8. Heard. 9. On a perusal of the respective pleadings and on a consideration of the submissions made, the facts to the extent relevant are, that a complaint has been made to the State Commission about the alleged harassment meted out to the 3rd Respondent. Acting on the said complaint the State Commission addressed the Inspector General of Police, PCR Cell for necessary action on the said representation and the matter was entrusted to the 2nd Respondent for enquiry and report. In the said connection, the 2nd Respondent issued the impugned notice purportedly under Section 160 Cr.P.C. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would not contest the jurisdiction and power of the State Commission exercisable under Section 11 of the Act. He would only contest the power exercised by the 2nd respondent in invoking the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel would submit that no complaint was made against the petitioners to the police nor any crime has been registered against them. The petitioners are not accused in any case and the 2nd respondent is not conducting any investigation into any crime registered, as such the impugned notice for appearance issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C., is unsustainable in law. 11. Indisputably the 2nd respondent has issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., directing the petitioners to appear before him. As per the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C., any Police Officer making an investigation under Chapter (XII) may by order in writing require the attendance before him of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station, who from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required. 12. Chapter XII Cr.P.C., contains provisions relating to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Section 154 provides that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced into writing and substance thereof shall be entered into in a book prescribed. Section 155 provides that in case of a non- cognizable offence, the information received shall be entered in a book prescribed for the said purpose and such case shall be investigated without the order of a Magistrate. Section 156 authorizes an officer to investigate any cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate and as per Section 157 an officer has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, a report to the said effect should be sent to the concerned Magistrate for taking cognizance upon a police report and proceed to investigate the facts. Under Section 161 an investigating officer is authorized to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted in the facts and circumstances of the case and reduce the same into writing any statement made to him in the course of examination. Under Section 165 a police officer is authorized to search a place for the purpose of investigation. Under Section 170 if the officer upon investigation finds sufficient evidence or reasonable ground, should forward the accused under custody to the concerned Magistrate for trial. Under Section 173 after the complaint of enquiry the police officer should forward a report in the prescribed form to the concerned Magistrate. 13. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Chapter – XII Cr.P.C., would unequivocally disclose that a police officer is empowered to investigate into complaints of commission of offence. Section 160 Cr.P.C., specifically prescribes that a police officer may require attendance of any person in the course of conducting an investigation under this Chapter. It is therefore evident that unless a crime is registered as provided in Chapter – XII Cr.P.C., the respondents 1 and 2 have no power to issue notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. 14. In the instant case, admittedly the 3rd respondent has not given any complaint to the Police against the petitioners nor respondents 1 and 2 registered any complaint under Chapter – XII Cr.P.C. Admittedly the respondents 1 and 2 have issued notices in pursuance of the directions of the State Commission. In the absence of a crime registered, it must be held that the notices issued to the petitioners under Section 160 Cr.P.C., are not legal and valid. 15. Nonetheless, the State Commission is well within its jurisdiction to perform its functions and exercise the powers enumerated in Section 11 of the Act and the respondents 1 and 2 acting as per the directions of the State Commission are within their power to collect information required for the purpose of submitting a report to the State Commission. Having regard to the same, it is made clear that the respondents 1 and 2 are at liberty to conduct enquiry as per the directions of the State Commission and submit a report, but however, otherwise than by invoking the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C. 16. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. ____ November, 2010 Skmr/Js.