Sec.420,506 IPC and sec.3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,- powers of Village Revenue Officer - investigating the caste of accused and other relatives - Challenged by way writ - their lordships held that once the crime is registered and under the sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act it requires the Investigating Officer to be satisfied that the complainant is a member belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and the accused persons do not belong to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. Only when the accused persons are not members of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, the offence gets attracted, but not otherwise. Therefore, it is absolutely essential to ascertain as to whether the accused person, including the writ petitioner herein, does or does not belong to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes and as such directed the VRO to made enquiry and submit report - nothing was found wrong - writ was dismissed = Smt. A.Rukmini Priya Darshini....Petitioner The Crime Investigation Department, Rep. by its Additional Director General of Police,Hyderabad & others....Respondents = 2014 (March.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10978

Sec.420,506 IPC and sec.3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,- powers of Village Revenue Officer - investigating the caste of accused and other relatives - Challenged by way writ - their lordships held that once the crime is registered and  under the sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act it requires the Investigating Officer to be satisfied that the complainant is a member belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and the accused persons do not belong to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe.  Only when the
accused persons are not members of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, the offence gets attracted, but not otherwise.  Therefore, it is absolutely essential to ascertain as to whether the accused person, including the writ petitioner herein, does or does not belong to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes and as such directed the VRO to made enquiry and submit report - nothing was found wrong - writ was dismissed =
writ of mandamus for declaring the action
of the 1st respondent Crime Investigation Department, represented by its
Additional Director General of Police, in directing the 2nd respondent, namely
the Village Revenue Officer, Nallagandla Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, to visit the house of the petitioner to ascertain the caste of
herself and her family members without there being any cognizable offence
committed by her or her family members and without registering any such case
against them, at the instance of the 4th respondent, as bad and illegal.=
the 
police of Crime Investigation Department registered a case in Crime No. 6 of
2014 under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for short, 'the Act').  The crime was registered on 31.01.2014 and as is
required, the investigation was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
When once the crime is registered under Section 3(i)(x) of the 1989 Act,
it is only appropriate that the Investigating Officer should ascertain whether
the complainant is a member belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe,
at the first instance.  It is also essential for the Investigating Officer to
ascertain, as a fact, whether the accused persons do belong to a scheduled caste
or a scheduled tribe, for, Section 3(1) of the Act sets out clearly that
whoever, not being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, does
insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a
scheduled tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable for
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to five years and with fine. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
the Act requires the Investigating Officer to be satisfied that the complainant
is a member belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and the accused
persons do not belong to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe.  Only when the
accused persons are not members of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, the
offence gets attracted, but not otherwise.  Therefore, it is absolutely
essential to ascertain as to whether the accused person, including the writ
petitioner herein, does or does not belong to scheduled castes or scheduled
tribes.  Under Section 20 of the Act, provisions of this Act shall have effect
not  withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for
the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect
by virtue of any such law. Hence, the provisions of this Act have been given
overriding effect.
        The Writ Petition is therefore, misconceived and it is accordingly
dismissed.  No costs.

2014 (March.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10978

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

W.P. No.4425 of 2014

05-03-2014

Smt. A.Rukmini Priya Darshini....Petitioner

The Crime Investigation Department, Rep. by its Additional Director General of
Police,Hyderabad & others....Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner:  Sri S. Chalapathi Rao

Counsel for Respondent 1 & 3:  GP for Home
 Counsel for Respondent No.2  :  GP for Revenue

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

WRIT PETITION No. 4425 of 2014  

O R D E R:

        This Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action
of the 1st respondent Crime Investigation Department, represented by its
Additional Director General of Police, in directing the 2nd respondent, namely
the Village Revenue Officer, Nallagandla Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, to visit the house of the petitioner to ascertain the caste of
herself and her family members without there being any cognizable offence
committed by her or her family members and without registering any such case
against them, at the instance of the 4th respondent, as bad and illegal.
        Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, who has accepted notice on
behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 on 19.02.2014, has since secured instructions, in
writing, from the Deputy Superintendent of Police and based thereon, would
submit that the 4th respondent herein has lodged a complaint setting out that
the persons named therein had abused him by touching his caste and also
threatened him with dire consequences apart from manhandling him.  Hence, the 
police of Crime Investigation Department registered a case in Crime No. 6 of
2014 under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for short, 'the Act').  The crime was registered on 31.01.2014 and as is
required, the investigation was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
It is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police examined the complainant, the 4th respondent herein,
and other witnesses and recorded their detailed statements also. The
Investigating Officer has also sent a requisition to the Tahsildar,
Serilingampally to issue caste certificates in respect of the complainant, the
4th respondent herein and the accused persons, so that the preliminary part of
the investigation can be accomplished.  According to the learned Assistant
Government Pleader, the petitioner herein is shown as the fourth accused person
in the complaint lodged by the 4th respondent.  Therefore, it is essential for
the Investigating Officer to find out whether the petitioner herein and her
family members do belong to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe before
proceeding any further.  Therefore, no exception need be drawn to the conduct of
Respondents 1 to 3.
        When once the crime is registered under Section 3(i)(x) of the 1989 Act,
it is only appropriate that the Investigating Officer should ascertain whether
the complainant is a member belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe,
at the first instance.  It is also essential for the Investigating Officer to
ascertain, as a fact, whether the accused persons do belong to a scheduled caste
or a scheduled tribe, for, Section 3(1) of the Act sets out clearly that
whoever, not being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, does
insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a
scheduled tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable for
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to five years and with fine. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
the Act requires the Investigating Officer to be satisfied that the complainant
is a member belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and the accused
persons do not belong to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe.  Only when the
accused persons are not members of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, the
offence gets attracted, but not otherwise.  Therefore, it is absolutely
essential to ascertain as to whether the accused person, including the writ
petitioner herein, does or does not belong to scheduled castes or scheduled
tribes.  Under Section 20 of the Act, provisions of this Act shall have effect
not  withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for
the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect
by virtue of any such law. Hence, the provisions of this Act have been given
overriding effect.
        The Writ Petition is therefore, misconceived and it is accordingly
dismissed.  No costs.
        Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand
dismissed.

------------------------------------------
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J        
05th March 2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515