Dismissed

Satti Mahipal Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Aug 2014CRLP/958/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Prevention of Atrocities Act and IPC registration of case due to land dispute. Court held case not fit for quashing but directed police not to arrest without following Section 41-A procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed Station House Officer not to arrest petitioners without following procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and to complete investigation as early as possible.

Satti Mahipal Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.958 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 11, 14 and 16 to 19 in Crime No.74 of 2010 of Sirgapur Police Station, Medak District.

¶4

The facts leading to filing of the present petition briefly are as follows: The 2 nd respondent herein lodged a complaint to the Station House Officer, Sirgapur Police Station on 13.12.2010, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.74 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427 & 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’, for brevity).

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the nd 2 respondent foisted a false case against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

¶7

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint falls within the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

¶8

This Court can quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following circumstances: (1) if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the

¶9

offence alleges to have been committed by the petitioner; (2) even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner; (3) if the registration of the case against the petitioner is prohibited by any law for the time being in force; or (4) if the registration of crime and continuation of investigation would amount to misuse of process of law; and (5) to meet the ends of justice.

¶10

As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 13.12.2010 at about 3-40 p.m., the petitioners herein intentionally insulted and intimidated the 2 nd respondent in the name of his caste. A perusal of the record reveals that there is a long standing dispute between the petitioners’ group and the 2 nd respondent’s group in respect of an extent of Ac.0-12 gts of land in Sy.Nos.247 and 268 of Nagadhara village of Medak District.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after passing of the orders by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the present complaint is filed by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent submitted that the 2 nd respondent herein preferred an appeal challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy. The allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners under Sections 147, 447, 427 & 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry, at the earliest stage of investigation, as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint.

¶12

The Apex Court in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punja b^[1] ,

¶13

held as hereunder:

¶14

"Cases may also arise where the allegations in the F.I.R. or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. In such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In this case it would be legitimate to the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person."

¶15

[2] In State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal the Apex Court, after having surveyed the entire case law on the point, has laid down certain indicia with reference to which, a High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

¶16

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the threshold.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Station House Officer, Sirgapur Police Station may be directed not to arrest the petitioners. A perusal of the record discloses that this Court granted interim stay on 07.03.2011 and the same has been in force till date. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court and also the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014 in Arnesh Kumar v. State of [3] Bihar , I am inclined to direct the Station House Officer, Sirgapur Police Station not to arrest the petitioners without

¶18

following the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and further to complete the investigation as early as possible.

¶19

With the above observations, this criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J th 8 August, 2014. siva

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.958 of 2011

¶23

th 8 August, 2014.