Tavva Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010063322023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1066/2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

TAVVA MANOJ KUMAR, S/O SUBRAHMANYAM, HINDU, 26 YEARS, R/O 6-3, AYODHYANAGAR, CHIRALA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,AP,

¶8

TAVVA VENKATA SAI CHAND, S/O SUBRAHMANYAM, HINDU, 27 YEARS, R/O 6-3, AYODHYANAGAR, CHIRALA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,AP.

¶9

TANNERU ANKAMMARAJU, S/O SRINU, HINDU, 31 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 5-207, LAKSHMIPURAM, VETAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP.

¶10

CHALLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. NAGESWARARAO, HINDU, 28 YEARS, R/O. AMODAGIRIPATNAM, DESAIPET, VETAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP.

¶11

NASIKA ANAND, S/O SIVA BRAHMAM, HINDU, 25 YEARS, R/O. JANDRAPETA, CHIRALA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

A N D

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY THEIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AP HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI.

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THE SHO, CHIRALA-1 TOWN POLICE STATION, CHIRALA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶16

KALLU MOUNIKA, W/O KRISHNA PRASAD, 26 YEARS, CASTE YERUKULA, RIO GUMASTALA COLOR Y, DEVANGAPURI VILLAGE, CHIRALA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶18

Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to pass an order quashing the Charge Sheet in SC. No. 50 of 2022 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Court for trial of cases Under SC, ST (POA Act, Ongole. Corresponding to Crime No. 352 of 2019 dated 06-11-201c U/Ss 417, 418, 420, 463, 465, 466 467, 468 r/w 34

¶19

2

¶20

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶21

IPC, 3 (1) (r), 3(1, (s), 3 (2) (va) SC ST POA Act r/w 156 (3) Cr.P.C of Chirala 1 Town PS. and be further pleased to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to DISPENSE WITH certified copy SCSPL No 50/2022 of the Hon'ble court and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order staying all further proceedings in the trial of the case including the appearance of the petitioners, accused Nos 4 to 8 in the case in SC SPL No. 50/2022 on the file of the court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge¬cumSpecial Court for Trial of the Cases corresponding to Cr. No .352 of 2019 U/Ss 417, 418, 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468 r/w 34 IPC, 3 (1) (r), 3(1) (s), 3 (2) (va) SC ST POA Act r/w 156 (3) Cr.P.C of Chirala 1 Town Police Station pending disposal of the main petition and be further pleased to pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶27

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an Order dispensing with the appearance of the petitioners/Accused NOs. A4 to A8 in the SC SPL No. 50/2022 on the file of the court of The Hon'ble VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge Cum Special Court for trial of cases under SC, ST (POA) Act, Ongole corresponding to Cr No. 352/2019 U/Ss 417, 418, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3 (1) (r), Sec 3 (1) (s) & Sec 3 (2).{Va) of SC, ST (POA) Act, 1989 of Chirala 1 Town Police Station Dated 06-11-2019 and be further pleased to pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶29

1.Y KOTESWARA RAO

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶31

1.SURESH BABU CHAPALA

¶32

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶33

3.LEGAL AID

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

3

¶36

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „CrPC‟) has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 8, to quash the charge sheet in Sessions Case No.50 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising out of a case in Crime No.352 of 2019 of Chirala I Town Police Station, registered against the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 to 8 and other accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 463, 465, 466, 467 and 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „IPC‟) and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity „the Act, 1989‟).

¶39

The allegations levelled as against the accused Nos.1 to 8 in the charge sheet, in brief, are that L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad is working in Indian Railways at Bitragunta and he is the husband of respondent No.3/complainant; that on 30.11.2018, L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad attempted to commit suicide, but he was rescued and was joined in the hospital; that when respondent No.3/

¶40

4

¶41

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶42

complainant got verified the mobile of L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad, she found one number i.e. 9963188028 as the last call and when she dialed the said number, one Neelapu Bala Murali Dhinesh Reddy, who is brother of A1, attended the call and informed that L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad got married his sister i.e. accused No.1 and disconnected the call.

¶43

(b) Subsequently, on 01.12.2018, A1 came to the hospital and proclaimed that L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad got married her through Matrimony; that again on 04.12.2018, A1 went to the house of respondent No.3/complainant along with A2 and A3 and demanded the L.W1/Kallu Ameena, mother of L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad, and L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad to pay a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs to settle the matter; that later, on 04.12.2018 L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad went to Bitragunta Railways Hospital and while L.W1/Kallu Ameena and respondent No.3/complainant were present at their house, accused Nos.1 to 3 came to their house and stated that L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad married A1, lead conjugal life for a few days and discarded her and cheated her and thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded L.W1/Kallu Ameena and respondent No.3/complainant, and when they expressed that they are not aware about the marriage and there was no need to pay the

¶44

5

¶45

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶46

amount, accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have abused them as „మాల లంజల్లారా‟ and went away; that on the same day at about 3.30 p.m. when L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad returned from Bitragunta, L.W1/Kallu Ameena and respondent No.3/complainant informed the incident; that while so on 04.12.2018 at about 10.00 a.m. while L.W1/Kallu Ameena and respondent No.3/complainant and L.W7/ Kallu Krishna Prasad, accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have come to their house again, picked up quarrel with them and when they refused to pay the demanded amount, A1 was alleged to have phoned A4 to A8 and that, A1 to A4 were alleged to have gone to the house of respondent No.3/complainant, picked up quarrel with L.W1/Kallu Ameena and respondent No.3/complainant and L.W7/ Kallu Krishna Prasad, trespassed into their house, alleged to have abused them touching their caste as „ఏOదే మాల లంజల్లారా, లంజ కొడకా మీరు మమ ు లను ఏమి చెయ్యలేరు మీ అంతు చూస్తాము‟; that A1 was alleged to have caught hold tuft of respondent No.3/ complainant, dragged her and abused her in filthy language as „Mala Lanja‟. L.W2/Pinjala Leelavathi, L.W3/Barlapudi Naga Devi, L.W4/Barlapudi Srinivasa Rao and L.W5/Golla Yeshaiah were said to have witnessed the incident. The incident was reported and the same was registered as a case in Crime

¶47

6

¶48

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶49

No.352 of 2019 of Chirala I Town Police Station for the aforesaid offences and investigated into.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 would contend that the present case was filed as a counter-blast to the case in Crime No.107 of 2019 of Women Police Station, Kakinada, lodged on the report of accused No.1, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 417, 420, 494 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad and his father one Kallu Hari Prasad. It is the contention of learned counsel that the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 are no way connected to the offences alleged and they are falsely implicated into the case by way of collusion between respondent No.3/complainant and L.W7/ Kallu Krishna Prasad. According to learned counsel, the petitioners/ accused Nos.4 to 8 have nothing to do with dispute between accused Nos.1 to 3 and L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad and even they are not aware of anything about the subsequent disputes between accused No.1 and L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad.

¶51

Sri Suresh Babu Chapala, learned Legal Aid counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that on 04.12.2018, when accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded the respondent No.3/complainant to

¶52

7

¶53

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶54

pay a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards settlement of the dispute, the respondent No.3/complainant and her husband and mother-in-law refused for any settlement and consequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 along with petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 got created dubious documents lilke wedding card, photographs etc., as if L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad married 1^st accused. Learned counsel would further contend that the alleged incident was witnessed by the elders and local inhabitants. According to learned counsel, the petitioners/ accused Nos.4 to 8 committed the offences of cheating, creating fraudulent documents to extract money of Rs.10.00 lakhs from L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad. He further submits that in the absence of any prima facie case made out even if the entire allegations are taken as true and correct, continuation of impugned proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Petition.

¶55

Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for State representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 concurs with the submissions made by the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.3/ complainant and prays the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

¶56

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A4 to A8 and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing

¶57

8

¶58

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶59

respondent Nos.1 and 2/State and Sri Suresh Babu Chapala, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the entire material available on record.

¶60

There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors .¹ , wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under:

¶61

“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse

¶62

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶63

9

¶64

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶65

of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶66

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶67

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code;

¶68

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

¶69

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

¶70

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶71

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶72

10

¶73

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶74

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶75

In order to prove the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC, there must be ingredients of deception, dishonest inducement and resulting damage. The accused must intentionally deceive a person, inducing them to deliver property or do/omit an act, causing harm to their body, mind, reputation or property. Section 418 of IPC defines the offence of cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to a person, whose interest the offender is bound to protect. It requires the accused to have a fiduciary or legal duty to protect the victim‟s interests. In order to prove the offence punishable under Section 418 of IPC, the ingredients include cheating, knowledge of likely wrongful loss, and a pre-existing obligation to protect that specific interest.

¶76

Section 420 of IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The essential ingredients of the aforesaid offence are deception of a person, fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property or alter/destroy a valuable security, and the existence of mens rea (dishonest intention) at the time of

¶77

11

¶78

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶79

the inducement. Section 463 of IPC defines Forgery, which involves making a false document or electronic record with specific fraudulent intent. Section 465 of IPC prescribes punishment for forgery, which is defined under Section 463 of IPC. The essential ingredients of Section 465 of IPC are making a false document or electronic record, doing so dishonestly or fraudulently (as per Section 464 of IPC), and intending to cause damage, injure, support a claim, or commit fraud. Section 466 of IPC deals with forgery of Court records, public registers, or valuable legal documents. In order to prove the said offence, it has to establish that the accused created a false document or electronic record, acting with intent to defraud or cause damage, and targeting specific documents. Section 467 of IPC prescribes forgery of valuable securities, wills, or authority to transfer property. Section 468 of IPC defines Forgery for the purpose of cheating.

¶80

The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is enacted to protect the dignity, self-respect, and safety of members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The key ingredients require the perpetrator to be a non-member of the Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe, with specific intent to insult, intimidate, or abuse a member in public

¶81

12

¶82

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶83

view. In order to prove the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va), the prosecution has to establish the accused insulted or abused the victim and it must occur in a place accessible to the public, not just private, although not necessarily in a crowded public place.

¶84

A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet and the contents of the statement of respondent No.3/complainant recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „CrPC‟) coupled with the contents of the report made by respondent No.3/complainant under Section 190 CrPC goes to show that on 04.12.2018 at about 10.00 a.m. while respondent No.3/complainant and her mother-in-law i.e. L.W1/Kallu Ameena, were at their house, accused Nos.1 to 3 came to their house and showed some papers and told that L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad, who is husband of respondent No.3/complainant married accused No.1, led marital life with her and cheated her and thereby, it was alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 3 demanded them to a pay a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs and to settle the matter. It further goes to show that the accused Nos.1 to 3 threatened them that they would file police case against them and L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad. The statement of respondent No.3/complainant further discloses that when she told

¶85

13

¶86

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶87

accused Nos.1 to 3 that she was not aware of the marriage affair of L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad and accused No.1 and they have no necessity to pay the amount, accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have abused respondent No.3/complainant and her mother-in-law touching her caste “మాల లంజల్లారా, మరాయదగా పది లక్షలు రూపాయ్లు కట్టి విషయ్ం సెట్టల్ చేస్కండి, లేదు అంటే, మీ అంతుచూస్తాము”.

¶88

A perusal of the statement of respondent No.3/ complainant further goes to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 again went to her house on 04.12.2018 at about 4.00 p.m. and threatened the respondent No.3/complainant and her husband i.e. L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad to pay the money and when respondent No.3/ complainant, her husband L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad and her mother-in-law L.W1/Kallu Ameena told them that they have no necessity to pay the money, accused Nos.1 to 3 threatened and called the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 and all of them abused the respondent No.3/complainant touching her caste “మాల లంజల్లారా, మాల లంజాకొడకా, పది లక్షలు రూపాయ్లు ఇచ్చి సెట్టల్ చేస్కండి, లేదు అంటే, మీ అంతుచూస్తాము”. It is further stated by respondent No.3/complainant in her statement that accused No.1 was alleged

¶89

14

¶90

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶91

to have caught hold of her tuft, dragged her while abusing her as „మాల లంజ‟. L.W2/Pinjala Leelavathi and L.W3/Barlapudi Naga Devi were said to have witnessed the incident.

¶92

A perusal of the statements of L.W2/Pinjala Leelavathi, L.W3/Barlapudi Naga Devi and other prosecution listed witnesses goes to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have demanded an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to settle the matter pertaining to marriage held between accused No.1 and L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad and threatened that they would file police case against them. The contents of their statements further goes to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to have abused respondent No.3/complainant, who is none other than her daughter-in-law, touching her caste „మాల లంజల్లారా, మీ అంతుచూస్తాము‟.

¶93

This Court perused all the statements of the listed witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. Apparently, all the allegations are directed as against accused Nos.1 to 3. Prima facie there is no accusation against the petitioners/ accused Nos.4 to 8 to attract the offences alleged. The only statement of respondent No.3/ complainant, who is cited as L.W6 in the list of prosecution witnesses, in her statement, it was alleged that when the quarrel ensued between the respondent No.3/complainant and A1 to A3,

¶94

15

¶95

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶96

the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 were alleged to have called by accused No.1. It is further alleged that all the accused went into the house of respondent No.3/complainant and abused her by touching her caste. Except the said vague accusation, there is no other specific material on record to connect the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶97

A perusal of the statements of all prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, the alleged abuse touching the caste of respondent No.3/complainant was made within the four walls of her house. Time and again, the Hon‟ble Apex Court and High Courts consistently held that the alleged caste-based abuse or insults occurring inside a private house do not attract the provisions of the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act, 1989, if they are not in public view. The legislature has used the word „within public view‟ under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 and Section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 instead of „public place‟. The intention of the legislature was to cover private places also if the offence under this Act is committed against the persons of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The offence of intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a

¶98

16

¶99

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶100

member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view means the public is able to witness the offence committed under this Act.

¶101

It is pertinent to mention here that neither in the statements of listed witnesses nor in the charge sheet, accusation has been made as against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 that either they wordily abused respondent No.3/complainant touching her caste name or anything attributed as against the petitioners/ accused Nos.4 to 8. A plain reading of entire charge sheet goes to show that all the allegations are attributed as against the accused Nos.1 to 3. The only accusation that has been made as against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 is that, on a call made by accused No.1, they were alleged to have gone to the place of alleged incident. Except mere sweeping allegations, there is no other accusation as against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 8 to attract the offences alleged against them.

¶102

Furthermore, a case in Crime No.107 of 2018 of Women Police Station, East Godavari District was registered against L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 417, 420, 494 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 basing on the

¶103

17

¶104

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶105

report made by accused No.1 in the subject crime. Besides that, a case in Crime No. 208 of 2019 of Chirala I Town Police Station, Prakasam District was also registered as against L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC basing on the report made by one Thirumala Sesharao Kothamasu. Though, the accusations leveled as against L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad are no way to the connected to the subject crime, it appears that there were earlier previous disputes between accused No.1 and L.W7/Kallu Krishna Prasad, which made the accused No.1 in the subject crime to get a case registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 506, 417, 420, 494 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. There is no material on record to connect the petitioners/A4 to A8 to the alleged offences. Even if the entire accusations made as against the petitioners/A4 to A8 are accepted as true and correct, no prima facie case for the offences alleged is not made out against them and the chances of convicting them when the trial takes place are bleak and remote. When such is the case, there is no point in allowing them to face the entire ordeal of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioners/A4 to A8.

¶106

18

¶107

SRK, J Crl.P.No.1066 of 2023

¶108

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Sessions Case No.50 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as against the petitioners/A4 to A8, are quashed.

¶109

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶110

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶111

16^th April, 2026. DNB

Tavva Manoj Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tavva Manoj Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avuthu Sambasiva Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vuma Resorts India Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Paralaamaralingeswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Koppula Jyothi Ratna Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Ramesh Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Maheswara Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh