Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chilaka Vijay Bhaskar Reddy vs State Of Ap on 6 August, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4323 of 2021
ORDER:-
This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking pre-arrest bail to the petitioner/A3 in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.82 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau, Rapur, SPSR, Nellore District registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was already arrested and hence, this petition has become infructuous.
3. Therefore, this criminal petition is dismissed as infructuous.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Date: 06.08.2021 IKN 2 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI (dismissed as infructuous) CRIMINAL PETITION No.4323 of 2021 Date: 06.08.2021 IKN 3 Crlp No.4443 of 2020 This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in SC, ST SC No.70 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru-cum-Special Judge, under SCs, STs (POA) Act, 1989 in respect of the petitioners/A1 to A5 and A7 to A9, wherein cognizance has been taken alleging that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under the 143, 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 2(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC, ST (POA) Act.
The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2/complainant who is studying B.Tech (final) year in SRKR Engineering College lodged a report alleging that on 20.07.2018 on receiving call from one Chennu Ram Charan who is his brother's friend respondent No.2 along with his brother and friends went to the shed situated at Town Railway Station. The accused by abusing beat respondent No.2 and others with rods due to which they sustained bleeding injuries. Basing on the same, crime was registered and was taken cognizance as S.C.No.70 of 2020.
Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet reveals that investigating Officer after thorough enquiry crime was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. but during the course of investigation found that Section 307 is not attracted as they could not seize any incriminating material i.e. crime weapons from the scene of offence and after examining the witnesses deleted Section 307 I.P.C. But, later the second investigating officer has again added Section 307 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the injuries certificate and points out that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and as such Section 307 I.P.C. is not attracted to the offences. Leanred counsel 4 for the petitioners submits that in the entire evidence of the witnesses there is no whisper about abusing them in the name of the caste.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that disputed questions cannot be gone into and it will only come into light once trial is commenced.
In view of the fact that the crime weapons as alleged were not recovered and the injury sustained by respondent No.2 are simple in nature and also considering the fact that there are no allegations in the evidence collected with regard to abusing in the name of caste, there shall by stay of all further proceedings in SC, ST SC No.70 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari Eluru - cum -Special Judge under SCs, STs (POA) Act, 1989.
5Crl.P.No.4444 of 2020.
Respondent No.2 herein has given complaint alleging that there was an agreement between him and the petitioner/accused with regard to immovable property and the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance but failed to pay the remaining amount. Therefore, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to sell the property and return the amount paid by him. However, later the deviated the same and started demanding respondent No.2 to handover the land so that he would lay plots and sell the property. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 09.05.2020 the petitioner came to the house of respondent No.2 and abused him in the name of the caste. Basing on the said complaint the present crime is registered.
Heard Sir K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- state.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident has taken place on 09.05.2020 as alleged in the complaint, but the complaint was lodged on 16.09.2020. He also submits that if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken it is disclosed that there is civil dispute between the parties and giving complaint after lapse of four months itself shows that to implicate the petitioner in a crime the said complaint is lodged, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and further learned counsel submits that even as per the complaint abusing respondent No.2 was not in the public eye. Hence, provisions under SCs STs (POA) Act are not attracted.
In that view of the matter there shall be stay of all further proceedings.