Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Botta Murali vs The State Of Ap on 9 September, 2019
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4989 OF 2019
ORDER:
1. In this Petition, filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seek to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.28 of 2019, of Srikakulam Rural Police Station, Srikakulam district, registered for the offences under Section 509 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State, and perused the record.
3. The complaint allegations are that the de-facto complainant purchased open plot No.540 of Aruna Layout in 2012 from one P.Venkata Ramana Rao. While so, on 19.02.2019 at about 05:00 p.m. petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into the said site and planting some cement poles, she questioned them, on which they abused her in the name of her caste and insulted her. Hence, the complaint. Investigation is reported to be pending.
4. Denying the complaint allegations as false and motivated, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in fact in respect of the disputed site, de-facto complainant filed O.S. No.188 of 2018 against the petitioners and others on the file of learned Additional UDPR,J Crl.P. No.4989 of 2019 2 Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking permanent injunction against them, wherein she wrongly mentioned the new survey number as No.422/2A1 (old survey No.17877/A1 for Plot No.540). Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed their written statement denying the plaint averments and the said suit is pending. However, to threaten the petitioners, the de-facto complainant lodged a false report with the Police. He thus prayed to allow the petition.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that the investigation is still pending, only four witnesses are examined, and charge sheet is not yet filed.
6. As can be seen from the FIR allegations, there are some disputes between the parties and the de-facto complainant filed O.S. No.188 of 2018 against the petitioners and others, wherein the petitioners opposed the suit by filing their written statement. Whether the petitioners illegally trespassed and planted cement poles in the land of the 2nd respondent/plaintiff or whether they are asserting their right in respect of their own land can be determined only after full- fledged investigation. Thus, investigation shall lead to its logical conclusion.
7. However, in view of the fact that the allegations in Crime No.28 of 2019 are covered under Sections 509 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes UDPR,J Crl.P. No.4989 of 2019 3 (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which are amenable to Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., the investigating officer is directed to scrupulously follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines rendered by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar1 during the course of investigation against Them. Further, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall co-operate with the investigating agency for smooth completion of the investigation.
8. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date:09.09.2019 Note:
Issue C.C. by 11.09.2019 Dsh 1 2014 (3) ACR 2670 (SC)