This order dismisses a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 353, 506 IPC and Sc/ST Act. The Court held disputed facts cannot form basis for summary notice of quashing in a case where inherent jurisdiction has been correctly exercised.
Criminal Petition No.6638 of 2009 was dismissed as unsustainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
Criminal Petition No.6638 of 2009
Between:
Pasula Swamy and others .. Petitioners
AND
The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Respondent
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for record relating to S.C. No.17 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and quash the proceedings.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor for the respondent,
the Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent.
S.C. No.17 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy against the petitioners, arises out of Crime No.80 of 2008 of Gouraram police station of Medak District involving the alleged offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. What the petitioners contend in the present criminal petition is not only that they are innocent of the offences but also that till the statement of the Junior Assistant recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he never stated that he was abused in the name of his caste. Apart from the contradictory statement of the Junior Assistant, the petitioners are also relying on the absence of any acquaintance between them and the Junior Assistant prior to the alleged incident, due to which they were not aware of the caste of the Junior Assistant. Claiming the allegations to be vague and to be not making out any case against the petitioners, the petitioners sought for quashing of the proceedings against them.
The charge-sheet containing the result of the investigation by the independent statutory investigating agency itself recorded that it was in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the victim referred to being abused in the name of his caste, but the investigating agency concluded on the totality of the circumstances evidenced by the material collected during investigation that the petitioners appear to have indulged in culpable conduct amounting to these offences including the alleged abuse of the victim in the name of his caste.
It is well settled that in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the Court is not expected to go into the reliability, acceptability and genuineness of the materials
relied on by the prosecution and exercise of the inherent jurisdiction is called for only in rarest of rare cases only when, ex facie, the accusations against the accused appear to be untenable on fact or in law.
Though the circumstances relied on by the petitioners may provide significant circumstances as to create a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story, the same cannot be considered to be sufficient to quash the proceedings, as such disputed questions of fact that cannot be probed in depth in this summary enquiry, cannot form the basis for any such conclusion.
The criminal petition, therefore, appears unsustainable and is dismissed.
_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J
Date: 25-08-2009
Svv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings against petitioners can be quashed on grounds of vague allegations and contradictory victim statement at this stage.
Whether disputed facts creating doubt on prosecution story are sufficient to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Pasula Swamy and others
The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor
G. Bhavani Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
