Dismissed

Mr Dharani Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2024CRLP/567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings against a police sub-inspector accused of caste-based abuse and insults. The court held that such acts are not integral to official duties, so prior sanction was not a jurisdictional bar at this stage, and disputed facts cannot be adjudicated during quashing proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Dharani Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010045842024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3327]

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 567/2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr Dharani Babu

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶11

1.K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶13

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶14

2.PARTY IN PERSON

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.567 OF 2024

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 CrPC, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Special S.C. No.126 of 2023 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuram.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for 1^st respondent-State and 2^nd respondent/party-in-person. Perused the record.

¶22

Pursuant to a complaint lodged by 2^nd respondent, which was forwarded to police through the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram vide C.No.1717/C3/DCRB-ATP/2020, dated 27.10.2020 along with Court endorsed complaint in Dis No.395/2020/Sessions, dated 07.08.2020 of the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs and the STs Cases, Anantapuram, a case in crime No.362 of 2020 of Urvakonda police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 189, 187, 203, 509 read with 34 IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SCs and the STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the petitioner herein and

¶23

¶24

another. After completion of investigation, police filed a final report referring the case as ‘lack of evidence’. Thereupon, 2^nd respondent filed a protest petition. The learned Special Judge, by an order dated 14.11.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.150 of 2022, partly allowed the petition and took cognizance against the petitioner herein/A.1 for the offences under Sections 509 IPC and 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) of the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act and issued summons to him. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶25

The allegations, in brief, are that on 21.04.2020 at 4.00 PM, 2^nd respondent approached the petitioner, who was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Urvakonda police station, and requested to apply suitable sections against the accused involved in cases registered by her, but the petitioner/A.1 abused her and insulted her by touching her caste name ‘aye madiga lanja munda, pove panikimalinadana, varipai remand ki pette sections pedithe, nenu, M.R.O. me village Kuruba Govindu Memu Yedi Anta Cheyenchamani Bayata Padathamu’. He asked her that he had already given complaint on M.R.O. regarding the said land and he would kill her if she entered in the assigned lands. Then, 2^nd respondent met A.2 and requested to take action against petitioner, but A.2 did not

¶26

¶27

take any action on petitioner/A.1 and convinced her to compromise with petitioner/A.1.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner without obtaining sanction as provided under Section 197 CrPC is illegal; that 2^nd respondent is in the habit of filing false complaints against public officials, and the present case is filed against the petitioner only to harass him, and hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

¶29

On the other hand, 2^nd respondent/party-inperson submitted that the allegations in the private complaint and the protest petition make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged as against the petitioner, and after recording sworn statements, the Special Judge rightly took cognizance of the offences as against the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶30

The learned Special Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submissions of 2^nd respondent and submitted that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.

¶31

¶32

Perused the record. The allegation is that on 21.04.2020 at 4.00 PM, when 2^nd respondent approached the petitioner, who was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Urvakonda police station and requested to apply suitable sections against the accused involved in cases registered by her, he alleged to have abused her in the name of her caste. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that no sanction as required under Section 197 CrPC was obtained before taking cognizance of the offence as against the petitioner. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the petitioner is alleged to have abused the defacto complainant in the name of her caste when she approached the police station. Hurling abuses in the name of caste on the defacto complainant would not form part of official duties of the petitioner. Sanction would be necessary only when the alleged act forms an integral part of discharge of the official duties. At the same time, sanction can be obtained at any time during the course of trial. Since, prima facie, the act of hurling the alleged abuses on the defacto complainant would not in any way come within the integral part of discharge of official duties of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspect as this nascent stage.

¶33

It is also his contention that 2^nd respondent is in the habit of lodging complaints against public officials in

¶34

¶35

order to settle her scores and she lodged as many as 17 cases, as mentioned in the final report filed by police, and hence, the present case is lodged only to harass the petitioner and to compel him to yield to her pressure in the cases. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint and the statements of witnesses recorded by the learned Special Judge disclose specific accusations as against the petitioner. Truth or otherwise of the said accusations cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 CrPC and the same has to be decided during the course of trial. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. This Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash impugned proceedings.

¶36

The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶37

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶38

05.03.2024 DRK

¶39

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶41

CRIMINAL PETITION No.567 OF 2024

¶42

05.03.2024

¶43

DRK

Mr Dharani Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Dharani Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunkara Veera Venkata Naga Suresh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarlagadda Krishna Chandu Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Penemetsa Agastya Maruti Varma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Katragadda Vijay Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Veera Venkata Satya Rao Sridharala Vs the State of Ap

P Sanjay Vs the State of Ap