Allowed

K. Ganga Ratnamma, v. Te State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Aug 2014CRLP/8842/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes the applicability of Section 3(i)(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to petitioners belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The High Court directed the police to expeditiously complete the investigation without arresting the petitioners, who are employees.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to expeditiously complete the investigation without arresting the petitioners.

K. Ganga Ratnamma, Vs Te State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8842 OF 2012 Dated 6-8-2014

¶2

Between:

¶3

K.Ganga Ratnamma and another.

¶4

..Petitioners.

¶5

And:

¶6

The State Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bathalapalli Police Station, Bathalapalli, Ananthapur District represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8842 OF 2012 ORDER:

¶9

This petition is filed to quash F.I.R. in Crime No.133 of 2012 of Bathalapalli Police Station, Bathalapalli, Anantapur District, for alleged offences under Sections 448, 323, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (i) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶10

Heard both sides.

¶11

Petitioners herein are A.2 and A.3 in the above referred crime.

¶12

The main grievance of the petitioners is that even according own version, A.2 and A.3 belong to Scheduled Tribe Community and therefore, the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not applicable against them. This court at the time of notice before admission, made it clear that the provisions of Section 3(i) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. has no

¶13

application to the petitioners and directed police to conduct investigation.

¶14

Now the only apprehension of petitioners is that the police may arrest them and in which case, section of law will also be attributed against them and both the petitioners are employees.

¶15

Considering the same, I am of the view that this Criminal Petition can be disposed of directing the police to proceed with investigation following the directions given by this court in the order dated 10-122012 and complete investigation without the arrest of the petitioners.

¶16

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to police to expedite the investigation and not to arrest the petitioners till completion of investigation.

¶17

As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶18

____________________ JUSTICE

¶19

S.RAVI KUMAR

¶20

Dated 6-8-2014. Dvs.

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8842 OF 2012 Dated 6-8-2014

¶23

Dvs

K. Ganga Ratnamma, v. Te State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Ganga Ratnamma, v. Te 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Ayub Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Alladi Aruna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Hemanth Reddy, Vs G.Ratnakar Reddy

Boddu Jayachandra Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Katta Narasimha Rao Vs Katta Saritha

Syed Khasim Vs State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.