The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashment of an FIR registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that allegations discloses an offence and all defences must be raised in the criminal trial.
The criminal petition is dismissed for being misconceived.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5477 of 2008
July 09, 2010
Between:
P.V.Sudhakar, S/o.P.Krishnarjuna Rao
… Petitioner
AND
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
And others
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5477 of 2008
ORDER:
The petitioner at the relevant time was Assistant Sub Divisional Engineer. A case was registered against him under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atoricities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The crime being F.I.R. No.352 of 2008 of P.S. Neredmet, Cyberabad, is sought to be quashed in this case. According to the petitioner, on 24.8.2008 at 09.30 AM, the Engineering squad along with Railway Police and local Police went to Safilguda Railway station and demolished encroachments. Thereafter the squad proceeded to Ramakrishnapuram at 10.30 AM and asked the encroachers to vacate the premises. There is a revelation.
He alleges that Sri Sarve Satyanarayana, Member of Parliament, warned the demolition squad and threatened that they would foist cases under the Act. After departure of M.P., removal of encroachments was continued upto 03.45 PM. The M.P., returned and chased the petitioner. He lodged a report at 04.15 PM at P.S.Neredmet, which was registered as Crime No.350 of 2008 under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. He further alleges that as a counter blast, respondents 2 to 9 gave a report to Police against the petitioner, which was registered as F.I.R. in Crime No.352 of 2008 under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
With the assistance of the counsel for petitioner, this Court has perused the report of contesting respondents. Prima facie it discloses the commission of offence as the petitioner allegedly used the caste names while dealing with encroachers. The allegation is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The counsel however submits that on the same day at the same time, two cases were registered – one against petitioner and another in Crime No.351 of 2008 against G.V.V.N.Raju, Inspector, Railway Protection Force, who filed separate criminal petition for quashing the said crime. It is also his case that Sri Sarve Satyanarayana, Member of Parliament, got the two complaints filed as counter blast to the cases registered against encroachers as well as the Member of Parliament.
This Court has given anxious consideration to the contentions made. The submission that the case was registered maliciously cannot be accepted. On the face of it, it discloses the offence and, therefore, all the defences are to be raised before the Criminal Court. If the Court while considering the petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), comes to any conclusion from the material available on record, it would amount to rendering the criminal justice administration process an empty formality. Section 482 of Cr.PC is not meant for the same. Petitioner has to raise all the defences before the Criminal Court.
The criminal petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) July 09, 2010 YS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition seeking quashing of FIR alleging offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is maintainable.
Whether objections to registration of the FIR should be raised before the Criminal Court instead of seeking quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
P.V.Sudhakar
State of Andhra Pradesh
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
