IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4303 of 2009 DATE:21.10.2010 Between: P.Madhusudhan Reddy …… Petitioner And: The State of A.P. rep. By its Public Prosecutor And another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4303 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 3(i) (x) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) in P.R.C. No.36 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kavali, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District. The offence is stated to have taken place on 04.04.2007. The 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant gave report to the police on 14.04.2007 with a gap of 10 days. As can be seen from the complaint that the offence is result of a petty quarrel among the children which reflected on elders. It is alleged that the accused abused the complainant in the name of caste and insulted her. 2) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the police registered the case originally as crime No.36 of 2007 of Kavali II Town Police Station under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act and that after investigation, the Sub Divisional Police Officer who is the authorised officer under the Rules filed final report referring the case as false. After receipt of notice of referred charge sheet, the 2nd respondent filed the 2nd complaint before the Magistrate. It does not matter whether objections are filed or protest petition is filed or a private complaint is filed after receiving referred notice on referred charge sheet. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the Magistrate mechanically took cognizance of the offence without going through the final report submitted by the Sub Divisional Police Officer. On a perusal of the final report referring the case as false, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Police Officer appreciated evidence of witnesses as if he is a Magistrate himself instead of collecting evidence and placing collected evidence before the Magistrate. The Sub Divisional Police Officer stated in the final report that there are contradictions between allegations in F.I.R and statement recorded by him from the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. It is also observed therein that witness Nos.2 to 6 are only kith and kin of the defacto-complainant. This sort of appreciation of evidence is impermissible for the investigating officer. It is for the Court/Magistrate to appreciate evidence and not to the investigating officer. Therefore rightly the lower Court did not place any reliance on final report of the investigating officer in this case. After recording sworn statement of the complainant, the lower Court took the case on file and issued process to the accused/petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is appearing before the Magistrate after receiving the process. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is inordinate delay of 10 days in giving report by the defacto-complainant to the police. It is a matter for appreciation by the Magistrate along with other evidence produced by both the parties. This Court, on that ground alone cannot grant any relief in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 21, 2010 KSH