Dismissed

Smt. Bommathi Swaroopa Rani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Apr 2013CRLP/4478/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of investigation for caste-based offences including assault, the High Court observed that the FIR prima facie disclosed commission of offences. The Court held that it cannot probe the truth of allegations at this stage and dismissed the petition, permitting the investigation to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash investigation dismissed; investigation directed to proceed; Station House Officer directed not to arrest petitioners until filing of charge sheet.

Smt. Bommathi Swaroopa Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4478 of 2010

¶3

Date:22.04.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Smt. Bommathi Swaroopa Rani and others.

¶6

..... Petitioners/A1 to A4.

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.

¶9

.....Respondents.

¶10

The Court made the following :

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶12

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4478 of 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The petitioners, who are the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.148 of 2010 of Hanamakonda Police Station, Warangal, preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the investigation in respect of the said crime, which was registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

¶15

Act.

¶16

2. The allegations in the First Information Report are as under: One Nunavathi Venkanna lodged a report stating that for the past two years, he along with his wife and two daughters were living in a hut, which was erected within the compound wall of H.No.5-11-338/5, belonging to one V.Vijay Kumar. On 11-05-2010, at about 7.00 P.M, one Bommathi Swaroopa Rani W/o.B.Sudershan, her two daughters and one son,

¶17

who are petitioners herein, came to the hut of the 2^nd respondent, abused them in the name of their caste as ‘lamabadi lanjakodukulara' and lamabadi lanjalara’ and asked them to remove the hut forthwith. Again on 12.05.2010, at about 12.00 noon, the petitioners along with six others came in an auto and abused the informant and his wife in the name of their caste as ‘lamabadi lanjakodukulara' and 'lamabadi lanjalara’ by questioning as to why the said hut is not removed. It is said that when the 2^nd respondent and his family members were removing the hut, the 2^nd respondent was beaten on his head with a stick and by threatening him with dire consequences the petitioners herein are alleged to have kicked his wife. It is also further alleged that the informant became unconscious and his wife received injuries on the waist. On basis of a report, a case in Crime No.148 of 2010 of Hanamkonda Police Station, Warangal District was registered against the petitioners.

¶18

3. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contend that even accepting that the allegations in the charge sheet to be

¶20

true, ingredients constituting the offences are made out against the petitioners. He would further contend that petitioners 1 to 3 are woman and it is highly improbable to believe that they would have indulged in such an act.

¶21

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State would contend that the allegations in the report prima facie disclose commission of an offence and as such, this Court should not exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the first information report.

¶22

6. The Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA V. PRAKASH

¶23

P. HINDUJ A^[1] observed as under:

¶24

“The legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the lodging of the first information report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of the police station in court under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., this field being exclusively reserved for the investigating agency.”

¶25

7. In STAE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS Vs. UJJAL

¶26

KUMAR BURDHA N^[2] , the Apex Court also held that unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those in-charge of investigation, the High Court should not be loath to interfere at the early/premature stage of investigation.

¶27

8. The legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed.. If the First Information Report prima facie, disclose commission of an offence, the Court does

¶28

not stop investigation, for, to do so, would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offence. The Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegation made. (Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi), 1999 (2) ALD (Cri) 860 SC). In Inder Mohar Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2008 SC 251, the Apex Court observed that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercise for advancement of justice. The Court would justified in preventing injustice by inherent power of any abuse of process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court.

¶29

9. Keeping in view, the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court, I proceed to deal with the matter. A perusal of the First Information Report would disclose that on

¶30

11-05-2010, the petitioners herein went to the land, where the informant along with his wife were living by a raising hut, and warned them to remove the hut. They are alleged to have abused the informant in filthy language and directed them to remove the hut forthwith. On the next day, the petitioners along with six others are alleged to have gone there and since the hut was not yet removed, they are alleged to have beat the informant kicked his wife and also abused the informant and others by their caste as ‘lamabadi lanjakodukulara’ and ‘lamabadi lanjalara’.

¶31

10. In view of the said allegations, which are though omnibus in nature, this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot probe the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. It is for the police to investigate into the matter and find out the truth or falsity of the allegations made therein. Since the allegations in First Information Report prima facie wherein the

¶32

offences under Sections 324 and 323, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are prima facie made out, this Court feels that registration of a crime and allowing the police to investigate into the matter cannot amount to abuse of process of law or that grave miscarriage of justice is caused to the petitioners by allowing the police to investigate into the matter.

¶33

I do not find any merit in the prosecution and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners represents that while issuing notice before admission on 02-05-2010, this Court was pleased to grant stay of arrest of the petitioners until further orders,

¶35

but directed that the investigation to go on and seeks stay of arrest till charge sheet is filed. Considering the age and qualifications of the petitioners, the Station House Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station is directed not to arrest the petitioners till filing of the charge sheet.

¶36

12. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition, stands dismissed.

¶37

______________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶38

Date:22.04.2013 mrb

¶39

[1] (2003) 6 SCC 195

¶40

[2] (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 547

Smt. Bommathi Swaroopa Rani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bommathi Swaroopa Rani 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

Kurra Chinna Sambasiva Rao, Vs K.Anuradha

Jugge. Dinesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Rama Varma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarrola Kumar Vs State of Ap

Chennu Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarkareddy Balakrishna Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh