THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23571 OF 2011 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is with regards failure of the first respondent to register the complaint dated 16.06.2011, whereunder he complained against the failure of the then Station House Officer, Ananthapalli Police Station i.e., Sri S. Venkateswara Rao, for refusing to record the complaint given by him for the incident which took place on 30.04.2011. It is not in dispute that, with regards the alleged incident dated 30.04.2011, a complaint has been registered as Crime No.123 of 2011. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that the then Station House Officer, Ananthapalli Police Station, despite being under a statutory obligation under Rule 5(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, ‘the Rules’) to register the complaint, had not done so and had, thereby, violated Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’). In the counter affidavit now filed by the Superintendent of Police, Eluru (the first respondent), it is stated that, pursuant to the complaint dated 16.06.2011, an enquiry has been ordered against the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapalli Police Station (presently posted at Gopalapuram Police Station of West Godavari District); and necessary action is also been initiated against the third respondent. Under Section 4 of the Act if any public servant, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to one year. Rule 5(1) of the Rules requires a complaint made to a police officer in-charge of a police station to be entered in a book to be maintained by that police station. The question, which would necessitate examination, is whether or not the third respondent had willfully neglected his duty of registering the complaint as stipulated under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. Since the Superintendent of Police has already initiated disciplinary action in this regard, and it is only on further enquiry can it be ascertained whether or not the third respondent had willfully neglected to discharge his duties, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition recording the submission of the Superintendent of Police that an enquiry has been ordered against the then Sub- Inspector of Police, Ananthapalli Police Station; necessary disciplinary action has also been initiated against the third respondent; and, as such, the first respondent or the competent authority concerned shall initiate disciplinary action against the third respondent and take action pursuant thereto at the earliest. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J September 02, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23571 OF 2011 September 02, 2011 MD