Dismissed

Domala Padma Rao v. The State of Ap., Rep byits

Telangana HC16 Feb 2012CRLP/1845/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Sessions Court dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings in a case registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that minor variations in the version of abuse and inconsistencies in witness statements did not justify quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.1845 of 2012 was dismissed; further proceedings in Sessions Case No.50 of 2010 continued.

Domala Padma Rao Vs The State of Ap., Rep byits — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.1845 of 2012

¶3

Date:16th February, 2012

¶4

Between: Domala Padma Rao S/o.Ramnath & Anr.

¶5

..... Petitioners/A1 & A2

¶6

AND

¶7

The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through SHO, PS Medchal, Ranga Reddy District & Anr.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

Criminal Petition No.1845 of 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A1 and A2 in Sessions Case No.50 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, to quash the proceedings therein.

¶14

2. A report came to be presented by Duddu Shivudu @ Shivalingam on 30.01.2010 at 15.00 hours before the Station House Officer, Medchal Police Station, against the petitioners herein alleging, inter alia, that on 29.12.2009 he has been abused by them in the name of caste and the same has been witnessed by P.Yadagiri and G.Sudharshan Reddy. Basing on the said report a case in Crime No.28 of 2010 came to be registered by the Station House Officer,

¶15

Medchal P.S. After due investigation, a charge-sheet came to be presented before XV Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad. As the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is exclusively triable by the Special Sessions Judge, the case came to be committed to the Special Sessions Court. On committal, the Special Sessions Court took the case on file as Sessions Case No.50 of 2010. Hence, this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A1 and A2 to quash the proceedings therein.

¶16

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record.

¶17

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no consistency in the statements of LWs.2 and 3 viz., G.Sudharshan Reddy and P.Yadagiri Yadav and therefore, continuation of proceedings in Sessions Case No.50 of 2010 amounts to abuse of process of the Court. A further submission has been made that the details mentioned in the panchanama do not support the version of the de facto complainant-2^nd respondent. Learned counsel by referring the exact words stated by A1 and A2 referable to the de facto complainant contends that there is no consistency as to the words uttered by them and mere abusing the person in the name of caste does not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶18

5. I have gone through the repot presented by the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant. It is stated in the report that the petitioners abused him in the name of his caste and threatened him with dire consequences. The version of the de facto complainant has been substantially supported by the witnesses examined during the course of investigation. The variation of the abuses hurled on the 2^nd respondent-de facto complainant cannot be a ground to quash the

¶19

proceedings in Sessions Case No.50 of 2010. In that view of the matter, further proceedings in Sessions Case No.50 of 2010 cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶21

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶22

Date:16^th February, 2012. cs

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶24

Criminal Petition No.1845 of 2012

¶25

Date:16th February, 2012

Domala Padma Rao v. The State of Ap., Rep byits

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Domala Padma Rao v. The State of Ap., Rep byits

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

Vipul Chandok Vs Sheetal Chandok

J.Kanaka Durga Prasad Vs Smt. Nuthalapati Mary Puspalatha

Munnamgi Rajeshwar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Kotha Yadamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Rafiq Ahmed Vs State of Ap., Rep.byits

Ch.Koteshwar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh