Allowed

Shaik Omer v. a.Chanakya and Anothers

Telangana HC1 Nov 2018CRLP/14900/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, finding that the continuation of the trial would amount to an abuse of process of law due to lack of intent and evidentiary contradictions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and all proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.60 of 2013 were quashed.

Shaik Omer Vs a.Chanakya and Anothers — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14900 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.60 of 2013 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for 1^st respondent and also the additional public prosecutor appearing for the 2^nd respondent – State.

¶5

The allegations in the complaint are that the petitioner is a contractor for giving Water connections for Azampura locality. On 22.09.2012, at about 02.30 P.M., when Mr.Chanakya, contacted him over phone by switching on the loud speaker, when the complainant asked the petitioner to give water connections to their locality, he replied ‘Hindus ku dhena ka nai, e connecions muslims ka hai’. The words which are used by the accused are alleged of attracting the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶6

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said words used by the petitioner do not attract the alleged offence as there is no intention to insult the complainant and

¶7

¶8

moreover, all Hindus do not fall under the category of scheduled castes. He also submits that, in the charge sheet, it is observed that there is a contradiction between the complaint and the statement given by the complainant. Moreover, the alleged conversation is only over phone and is not within public view. This Court finds some force in the said contentions.

¶9

Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the continuation of further proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶10

Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and all the proceedings against the petitioner in P.R.C.No.60 of 2013 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 are hereby quashed.

¶11

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending

¶12

consideration, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

______________ T. RAJANI, J

¶14

01.11.2018 SS

Shaik Omer v. a.Chanakya and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Omer v. a.Chanakya and Anothers

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

Sajja Nageswar Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

Sanikommu Balachander and Another Vs State of Ap., and Another

Kolli Siva Reddy Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Gundluri Srinivas, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Vs State of Ap, Rep Pp, through SHO Bowenpally Ps., and Anr.

Vaddelli Srinivas Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Gundluri Srinivas Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another