THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.12749 of 2009 Date: 05-10-2009 Between: Kothapalli Nirmala … Petitioner And The State of A.P. and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.12749 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 in according permission to prosecute the 6th respondent, based on the representation dated 30.06.2008 of the petitioner, as illegal arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to according sanction to prosecute the 6th respondent. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she and some other residents of Jeddetivalasa are in possession and enjoyment of Government lands admeasuring Acs.2.40 cents in R.S. No.108 and Acs.4.40 cents in R.S. No.4.40 cents for the last five years. It is submitted that on 16.02.2008, in the morning hours at about 9 a.m., when they were all working in the said land to remove the bushes existing over the said land, one Merapala Satyam and 13 others, who belongs to forward caste of their village, came in drunken condition with deadly weapons, caught hold hair of the petitioner and pulled her away and threatened them with dire consequences. Immediately after the incident, they submitted a report on 16.12.2008 to the 6th respondent, Sub-Inspector of Police, who received and issued a Receipt No.14 but no action was taken by the 5th respondent, Station House Officer, to register the crime against the said persons and dodged the same for six months. Having waited for such a log time, again they made a report on 09.06.2008 to the Superintendent of Police and Sub Divisional Police Officer and also even they initiated no action. It is further submitted that when the petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, S.Kota, surprisingly the 5th respondent registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2008 and eventually submitted a report before the Court that the report is false. It is also submitted that before filing a private complaint, she also filed a petition before the respondents 1 to 4 on 30.06.2008 informing the inaction and indifferent attitude of the 6th respondent over the report submitted by the petitioner and sought sanction for launching prosecution against the 6th respondent but all efforts were in vain. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, 4th respondent, Superintendent of Police, filed counter, inter alia, stating that the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 16.02.2008 alleging the said averments against the said 14 persons. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.51 of 2008 was registered by the then Sub Inspector of Police, 6th respondent, and took up the investigation. As against the private complaint a case in Crime No.56 of 2008 was also registered and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, as many as 49 witnesses were examined and the majority of the witnesses have stated that there was no dispute or quarrel taken place between zeroythi land people and the petitioner did not insult or touched their castes. After detailed investigation, reported was submitted as false in both the cases. As far as the representation of the petitioner dated 30.06.2008 is concerned, the Superintendent of Police vide his letter in C.No.118/A6/PR/08 dated 17.09.2008 he had taken disciplinary action against the 6th respondent as she has failed to register a case immediately and thus she exhibited gross negligence of duty which is unpardonable on the part of the public servant. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that when she lodged a complaint before the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent did not register the case, immediately. Hence, narrating the indifferent attitude of the 6th respondent, the petitioner made a representation on 30.06.2008 before the higher officers and on the said representation, the higher authorities have taken disciplinary action against the 6th respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that no further direction need to be passed for launching prosecution against the 6th respondent since the disciplinary action had already been taken against the 6th respondent. However, it is open for the Superintendent of Police to take appropriate action, pursuant to his letter dated 17.09.2008 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the main grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is to accord sanction for prosecution against the 6th respondent, the Superintendent of Police had already initiated disciplinary action against the 6th respondent. Therefore, I deem it appropriate no further directions as sought for by the petitioner are required. Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, at the threshold. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 05-10-2009 LSK