Disposed

Komari Venkateswhwarlu, v. Moole Dasharatham

Telangana HC7 Dec 2011CRLP/3248/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash prosecution for an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The judge directed the police not to arrest the physically disabled petitioner until the investigation is completed, while leaving the petition partly open subject to a final report.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police not to arrest the petitioner until the investigation is completed; disposed of the petition at the stage of admission subject to the final report.

Komari Venkateswhwarlu, Vs Moole Dasharatham — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.3248 of 2010

¶3

Date: 07-12-2011

¶4

Between

¶5

Komari Venkateswarlu

¶6

… Petitioner/Accused

¶7

and

¶8

Moole Dasharatham

¶9

… Respondent/ De facto Complainant

¶10

State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

Criminal Petition No.3248 of 2010

¶14

Order:

¶15

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2010 on the file of Pangal Police Station, Mahabubnagar district.

¶16

2. The petitioner is sole accused in the aforesaid crime, which is registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶17

3. From a perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the 1^st respondent- de facto complainant has made a complaint alleging that the petitioner-accused telephoned and abused him. Upon which, the 1^st

¶18

respondent- de facto complainant proceeded to the house of the petitioner-accused on his motorcycle and on the way near Kota, the petitioner was found along with one Kurumaiah and another villager. It is complained that when he questioned the petitioner as to why he abused him in Cell phone, the petitioner got wild and abused him further as ‘ MALA LANJAKODUKA IKKADIKI YEDUKU VACHINAVURAA ’.

¶19

4. In this criminal petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the petitioner has not uttered any words in the telephone and the subsequent incident on the aforesaid date is purposely made only to attract the provisions under the said Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped and partially blind and if the investigation is allowed he will be put to great hardship.

¶20

5. I have perused the complaint. It is well established that in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C it is not for this Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. A perusal of the complaint, prima facie , do attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not uttered any such words, it is a matter for investigation by the Police.

¶21

6. As it is stated that the complaint was given on 253-2010 and the petitioner is physically handicapped and partially blind,

¶22

I deem it appropriate to dispose of the criminal petition directing the respondent-Police not to take any steps for arrest of the petitioner unless appropriate final investigation is completed and final report is filed. It is also made clear that it is open to the respondents to take

¶23

further steps in accordance with law after filing of the final report.

¶24

7. Subject to the above, the criminal petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission.

¶25

_______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.

¶26

07^th December, 2011. Ak

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶28

Criminal Petition No.3248 of 2010

¶29

07^th December, 2011. (Ak)

Komari Venkateswhwarlu, v. Moole Dasharatham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komari Venkateswhwarlu, v. Moole Dasharatham

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

Chennuboina Chittibabu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yadava Rao, Vs The Commissioner

Abbisetti Sattiraju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

Dr.K.Rama Devi, Vs The State of A.P.

Smt. a. Surya Kumari, Vs The State of A.P.

Kaluvakolanu Venkata Naga Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh