Dismissed

S. Mohan Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Nov 2011CRLP/10589/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and the SC/ST Act, 1989. Finding sufficient circumstances for a cognizable offence on a public road, the Court dismissed the petition and directed a stay of arrest while investigation continues.

What did the court decide?

Director the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioner until completion of investigation and filing of final report.

S. Mohan Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶3

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10589 of 2009

¶4

DATE: 01.11.2011

¶5

Between:

¶6

S.Mohan Reddy …… Petitioner And

¶7

The Government of A.P rep. by S.H.O of P.S. Talakondapally and Mandal, through Public Prosecutor and another

¶8

…..Respondents

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10589 of 2009

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent before the Magistrate was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is alleged that on 24.11.2009 at about 7.00 A.M when the 2^nd respondent was going along with his cow on public road, the accused came on his motor cycle and dashed his cow and that when he questioned the accused after giving his identity particulars, the accused became angry and beat the

¶13

2^nd respondent with chappal on his head and abused in filthy language touching his Madiga caste and that two persons who are passing on the road intervened. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that it is a concocted complaint and that there was dispute between the petitioner/accused and Balreddy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the said Balreddy employed the 2^nd respondent to foist this false case against the petitioner and that this is nothing but abuse of process of law. Except Balreddy and the 2^nd respondent belonging to one village, no other connection could be pointed out to show that the 2^nd respondent was working on the instigation of Balreddy. Truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint is a question of fact which this Court may not be in a position to investigate in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The offence took place on public road which is a place of public view. Two witnesses were also said to have been present at the time of incident. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to quash F.I.R in this case at its threshold.

¶14

2) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Since the petitioner is stated to be working as teacher, the investigating officer is directed not to arrest the petitioner until completion of investigation and filing of final report/charge sheet.

¶15

_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶16

November 1, 2011

¶17

ksh

S. Mohan Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Mohan Reddy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rasheed, Vs The State of A.P.

Adam Razvi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.R.Prasad, Vs Chittempalli Praveen Kumar

Gourishetty Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rapolu Anand, Vs The State of a.P., Rep by its Sho,.

R. Adinarayana Vs The State