Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Venna Vengal Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2359 OF 2018 Between: 1. Venna Vengal Reddy, S/o. V.Venganna, aged about 53 years, . Venna Aadi Lakshmi, W/o. V.Vengal Reddy, aged about 45 years, Venna Shankar Reddy, S/o. V.Vengal Reddy, aged about 29 years, Venna Madhukumar Reddy, S/o. Vengal Reddy, aged about 24 years, Jangam Reddy, C/o. V.Vengal Reddy, aged about 37 years, Padmavathi, W/o. Jangam Reddy, aged about 32 years, AARON All are R/o Sripathirao peta Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ....Petitioners/Accused 1 to 6 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Atmakur P.S, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2. Katravath Parvathi Bai, W/o. K.Siva Naik, aged about 39 years, R/o. H.No.2- 77/2, Sripathirao peta Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Respondents/Complainant. Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to memorandum of Criminal Revision is filed being aggrieved by the order in CFR No. 569 of 2016 in Cr.No.3 of 2015 of Atmakur P.S.dt.23-7-2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District, for the following among other grounds. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CFR No. 569 of 2016 in Cr.No.3 of 2015 of Atmakur P.S.dt.23-7-2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District, pending disposal of CRLRC 2359 of 2018, on the file of the High Court. The petition/Appea!l coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1, the Court made the following. ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Criminal Revision Case No.2359 of 2018 ORDER:-
This Criminal revision petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') assailing the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur in CFR No.569 of 2016 in Cr.No.3 of 2015 of Atmakur Police Station, wherein the Court below has taken cognizance against Al to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 'Act).
2. The case of the revision petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.3 of 2015 of Atmakur Police Station is that the 274 respondent herein has lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe (Sugali) community and the accused abused her in the name of caste. It is also alleged in the complaint that accused No.4 was moving closely with daughter of the de facto complainant, on that disputes arose between the parties and in the said process the petitioners have abused the de facto complainant in the name of caste. Though initially crime was registered under Sections 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC&ST (POA) Act), subsequently after investigation and duly obtaining permission from the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool the charge sheet was filed only under Section 509 r/w 34 of IPC as he opined that it is a fit case to file the charge sheet only for the ca offence punishable under the aforementioned Section as there is no evidence to substantiate the offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC&ST (POA) Act and the Superintendent of Police also directed to delete the name of accused No.3 as there was no evidence against him. Aggrieved by the same the 2"4 respondent herein has filed protest petition before the Court below and the Court below vide order dated 23.07.2018 has allowed the petition by taking cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (POA) Act. Questioning the same the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Heard Sri Gangirami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent and Sri V.S.Reddy, learned counsel for the 274 respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Court below does not contain any reasons and the Court below has taken cognizance for the offence under the provisions of SC&ST (POA) Act without any basis. In fact, the witnesses who are examined have not supported the case of the complainant as such, the offences punishable under the SC&ST (POA) Act were deleted and charge sheet is filed only for the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the Court below has categorically held that the witnesses produced by the complainant on her behalf in the protest petition were not examined by the police during investigation. The Court below after considering the sworn statements of the witnesses has tak n cognizance.
Aaa. rp
6. Having heard both sides and on perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the police have examined three witnesses and as none of the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant, the police after obtaining permission of the Superintendent of Police, had filed charge sheet only under Section 509 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order passed by the Court below does not contain reasons for allowing the said petition and taking cognizance against all the accused for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (POA) Act. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the Court below for fresh adjudication.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 23.07.2018 under revision is set aside and the matter is remanded to Court below. The Court below shall consider the same afresh and pass a reasoned order. As the matter pertains to the year 2012, the Court below shall pass orders expeditiously, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.
: A Sd/-E.Kameswara Oo ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY! SECTION OFKicER The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Kurnool District.
The Station House Officer, Atmakur Police Station, Kurnool District.
; Katravath Parvathi Bai, W/o. K.Siva Naik, R/o. H.No.2-77/2, Sripathirao peta Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (by RPAD) One CC to Sri. P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy.
To, ON a DOA HIGH COURT LK,J DATED:02/02/2021 ORDER CRLRC.No.2359 of 2018 DIRECTION