Jarabana Nageswara Rao v. The State Of A.P

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5786 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.164 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to political rivalry, the second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioner. He further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. 3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is the sole accused and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 06.07.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., when the second respondent participated in Babu Jagjeevan Ram Vardanthi function, the second respondent herein commented that there

is a corruption in the Nandigama Nagar Panchayat. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein insulted and abused the second respondent in the name of his caste. 4.

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 petitioner has committed the alleged offence 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. 5.

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 Gujarat3 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. 6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated by the Supreme 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)

Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar5, the Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.164 of 2017. 7.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. _________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 18.07.2017 Rns 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273