In this Criminal Petition filed by alleged accused seeking quashing of the F.I.R., the single bench held that the allegations involve disputed questions of fact and the investigation is pending. The petition was dismissed.
Petition for quashing of the FIR is dismissed.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR
Crl.P. No. 3170 of 2008
DATED: 14.12.2011
Between:
1. Veeresh Goud 2. Madan Goud .. Petitioners/ A1 and A2 And 1. The State of A.P. .. Respondents 2. Harijan Hanumanthu
O R D E R:-
1. Heard Sri M. Ramalingeswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. The petitioners are A1 and A2 in Crime No. 37 of 2008 on the file of Ghattu, Mahaboobnagar District. They filed this petition for quashing the F.I.R. in the aforesaid case.
3. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). The allegations in the complaint do show the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised various contentions but all those contentions fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact and cannot be decided in this petition.
4. Lastly, the petitioners’ counsel also brought to my notice that a
police report is given by the wife of the 1st petitioner against the de facto complainant to the effect that he tried to outrage her modesty and
in that connection the de facto complainant herein also threatened the husband and son of that lady with a false case under the Act. Based on this complaint of the above lady also, the petitioners’ counsel submits that the present F.I.R. should be quashed.
5. It may be noted that the above circumstances pointed out by the petitioners’ counsel would only speak about the question relating to the merits of the matter. In the present case, the merits have to be decided on evidence and it is a matter for trial and cannot be gone into this petition. It is brought to my notice by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the police have also completed investigation and laid charge sheet and it is pending consideration.
6. In the above circumstances, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
__________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J
14.12.2011
bcj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. in a case alleging caste atrocity under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner can claim a false case was in anticipation of an FIR.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Veeresh Goud
Madan Goud
The State of A.P.
Harijan Hanumanthu
N. RAVI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
