The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR registered under the SC/ST Act against the petitioner, holding the subsequent report by the second respondent was a retaliatory counter blast constituting abuse of process.
The FIR in Crime No.49 of 2008 lodged by the second respondent against the petitioner was quashed.
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
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5105 OF 2008
Between:
Vutla Narasimha Reddy
… PETITIONER
The State of A.P. & another
… RESPONDENTS
This Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5105 OF 2008
ORDER:
1. The petitioner/accused is M.P.T.C. member. The second respondent/de facto complainant is Z.P.T.C. member. It is alleged in the report given by the second respondent that on 15.07.2008, there was general body meeting of Mandal Praja Parishad at M.P.D.O. Office, Kodakandla, and that while the meeting was going on, the accused insulted the second respondent by calling
her as ‘pakka’ rowdy and she did not get over her caste habits. On that report, the Kodakandla police registered case in Crime No.49 of 2008 for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner. At this stage, it may be noted that on the same date of incident, i.e., on 05.07.2008 itself, the accused gave report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodakandla Police Station, to the effect that during general body meeting of Kodakandla Mandal Parishad held on the same day, when he raised his village problems, the second respondent entered into wordy altercation with him and also attacked him physically by catching hold of his collar and attempted to beat him with chair. On that report of the petitioner, the police registered Petty Case No.164 of 2008 for offence punishable under Section 355 I.P.C. against the second respondent and filed summary trial case before the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Thorrur. Four days after the alleged incident dated 15.07.2008 and three days after the police filed petty case against her, the second respondent gave the present report on 19.07.2008.
2. It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as a counter blast for the report given by the petitioner, the present report is given by the second respondent to the police alleging abuse in the name of caste. In the petty case, apart from showing the petitioner as the first witness, the police cited M.P.D.O., Tahsildar and media persons of Varta, Sakshi, Eenadu and Surya newspapers as witnesses to the incident. Reading of the events and contents of the successive reports undoubtedly disclose that the present report was given by the second respondent as an arm-twisting device and as counter blast to the report given by the petitioner against her. This is nothing short of abuse of process of law.
3. Hence, the petition is allowed quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.49 of 2008 of Kodakandla Police Station, Warangal
District.
______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
August 05, 2010 KL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5105 OF 2008
August 05, 2010
KL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present report by the second respondent was a counter blast to the petitioner's report and amounts to abuse of process of law.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vutla Narasimha Reddy
The State of A.P.
Another
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
