Suresh Naidu, S/O. Giridhar Naidu, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4776 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/sole accused in Crime No.89 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Chandragiri Police Station, Tirupati Urban, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A) and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioner at the behest of the other villagers. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.

3.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. 4.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is the sole accused and the second respondent is the de facto complainant in Crime No.89 of 2017.

5.

As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 24.05.2017 the petitioner abused and insulted the second respondent in the name of her caste. It is further alleged that the petitioner made an attempt to outrage her modesty.

6.

While exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. Whether the second respondent has foisted a false case against the petitioner or not will come to light during the course of investigation. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.

7.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab1, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, V.Y.Jose v. State of Gurajat3 and Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan4, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

8.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar5, the Station House Officer, Chandragiri Police Station, Tirupati Urban, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.89 of 2017 so far as the petitioner/sole accused is concerned.

1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC) 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273

9.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 10.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 23.06.2017 Ivd