Tatina Srinivasa Chakravarthi v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.Byits

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE SIXTH -DAY OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN P R E S E N T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6213 OF 2011 Between:

Tatina Srinivasa Chakravarthi ...

Petitioner V/s.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & Anr.

...

Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor [AP] The court made the following:

[order follows]

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6213 OF 2011 O R D E R :

The petitioner is the sole accused in CC.No. 24 of 2011 arising out of Crime No. 150 of 2009 registered by the Station House Officer, Gopalapuram Police Station, West Godavari district, for the alleged offences punishable under sections 420 and 406 of IPC.

2. The second respondent before this Court is the defacto complainant and petitioner is the sole accused. The dispute between both petitioner and the second respondent is one arising out of an immovable property lease and the same is of civil in nature. The second respondent/defacto complainant has a grievance that the petitioner has not handed over the premises as agreed in due time to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet is filed.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has also proceeded with the matter upon the complaint filed by the second

respondent against the petitioner on the allegations made under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 and filed final report therein.

5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, counsel appearing on behalf of second respondent.

6. It is clearly evident from the record that the second respondent has misused the provisions of SC/ST [POA] Act, 1989 as an arm-twisting method against the petitioner in a civil dispute. The second respondent without availing the remedies available under law before the appropriate court has filed this complaint under sections 420 and 406 of IPC where the ingredients of Section 420 and 406 of IPC do not attract the facts of the case and the same are not reflected in the charge-sheet.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Criminal Petition is allowed and C.C.No. 24 of 2011 on the file of the Court of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur is quashed.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD.

/10/2017 I s L

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6213 OF 2011 [ ALLOWED ] Date: 06/10/2017 Circulation No.

Court Master: I s L