Partly allowed

Yadavali Umapathi Naidu at Umapath Naidu v. the Satate of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2022CRLP/9950/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash a complaint under IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Court held investigation must be completed before determining merits. Petitioner granted notice under CrPC 41-A.

What did the court decide?

Investigation not to be interdicted. Criminal Petition disposed of. Petitioner granted notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

Yadavali Umapathi Naidu at Umapath Naidu Vs the… — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9950 of 2022

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.139 of 2022 on the file of Somala Police Station, Chittoor District, for offences under Sections 506 & 509 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶4

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Petition to quash the said complaint on the ground that the allegations in the complaint read along with the statement given by the defacto–complainant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C would not make out any case against the petitioner.

¶5

Sri M. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Budapap & ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh¹ to contend that even abuse in the name of the community would not amount to an offence under the above provisions unless a clear cut intention to humiliate is made out. He contends that no such

¶6

1 2007 2 ALT (Cri) 106

¶7

¶8

intention is made out, even if the allegations in the complaint and the Section 161 statements are accepted to be true.

¶9

investigation. It would be premature to determine these issues without the said investigation being completed.

¶10

In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interdict the investigation at this stage.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner would raise the question of delay in the filing of the complaint, a full day after the alleged incident. He submits that the said delay is fatal to the case.

¶12

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all these issues in the event of a charge-sheet being filed against the petitioner.

¶13

As the offences would not attract the punishment of

¶14

more than seven years imprisonment, the petitioner is entitled to a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C before any steps are taken against him. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶17

20.12.2022 BSM

¶18

¶19

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9950 of 2022

¶21