Dismissed

M. Murali Krishna (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jul 2012CRLP/5544/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition was filed by two accused police officers challenging the issuance of summonses and taking of cognizance in a private complaint. The petitioners argued that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required before cognizance. The Court held that facts must be tried and did not find reasons to interfere, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed; no stay or quashing of proceedings.

M. Murali Krishna (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

Crl.P.No.5544 of 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners 1 and 2/A.1 and A.2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A.1 is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police. A.2 is working as Inspector of Police. The dispute relates to parking of a Car at a centre causing obstruction to the traffic. The 2^nd respondent/complainant is stated to be a removed Police Constable. On 08.12.2011, case was booked by the Police against the 2^nd respondent for offence punishable under Section 353 IPC alleging that when traffic Police Constable asked the 2^nd respondent to remove the car from that place, the 2^nd respondent manhandled the traffic Police Constable and obstructed his duties. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent filed private complaint against A.1 and A.2 alleging the above offences. After making enquiry under Section 202

¶5

Cr.P.C., the Magistrate took the case on file against A.1 and A.2 for the above offences and issued summonses to A.1 and A.2 for appearance in P.R.C.No.18 of 2012 (C.F.R.No.458 of 2012).

¶6

2. It is contention of the petitioners’ counsel that the lower Court should have considered requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before issuing summonses to A.1 and A.2 and before taking cognizance of the said offences. The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on order dated 19.01.2010 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3242 of 2006 (Municipal Corporation

¶7

of Visakhapatnam v State of Andhra Pradesh) in this regard. In that decision, it was laid down that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is required at the time of taking cognizance of the offences against public servants and not before. The question in the case on hand is not the stage where sanction for prosecution is required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. But the question is whether sanction for prosecution is required at all in the present case.

¶8

3. It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel

¶9

that the present private complaint is filed by the 2^nd respondent as a counter-blast for the offence under Section 353 IPC booked against him and that as the Police Officers did not agree to withdraw the said crime under Section 353 IPC, the 2^nd respondent is pursuing this case as counter-blast. This case also arises out of the same transaction relating to parking of a car. According to the 2^nd respondent, apart from A.1 and A.2 manhandling him for parking the car at that place, A.1 and A.2 also abused him in the name of caste and insulted him to the effect whether a person belonging to Erukala caste requires a car. It is also further alleged that the 2^nd respondent was abused in a filthy manner and was addressed in a derogatory manner. Irrespective of the fact whether A.1 and A.2 were on duty at the time of the offence, it is not part of their duty to manhandle and to abuse the 2^nd respondent in the name of caste allegedly. Therefore, if facts alleged by the 2^nd respondent against A.1 and A.2 are true, the said facts do not attract requirement of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the

¶10

2^nd respondent is a question of fact, which this Court may not be in a position to consider and decide in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter for trial before the trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere in this Criminal Petition.

¶11

4. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶12

____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶13

Dt. 20^th July, 2012

¶14

PNV

M. Murali Krishna (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Murali Krishna (A-1), v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.Kusuma Haranath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

E.P.Dharma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boraga Nageswara Rao Vs DadalaSurya Kumar

Shaik Dada Peer , Ghani Vs The State of a.P., rep. by P.P.

Sri a.Krishna Kumar Vs Sri.Gundu Appa Rao

Konda Vinodh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh