Telangana High Court
CRLP/16386/2014 of P. Madhu, S/o Perumal Vs The State of A.P., on 30 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.16386 of 2014 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.109 of 2014 of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Arguments
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARYCRIMINAL PETITION No.16386 of 2014ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash theproceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in CrimeNo.109 of 2014 of Tirumala II Town Police Station, ChittoorDistrict, registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’).
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned Public Prosecutor.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is adelay of 13 days in lodging the complaint, therefore it is a fit caseto quash the proceedings.Learned Public Prosecutor submittedthat mere delay in lodging the complaint by itself is not a sufficientground to quash the proceedings.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners areaccused Nos.1 to 3 and the second respondent is the de factocomplainant.As per the allegations made in the complaint, on16.11.2014 the petitioners herein insulted the second respondentin the name of his caste.It is further alleged that the petitionersherein threatened the second respondent with dire consequences-unless they pay Rs.500/ per month to him.
While deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., theCourt has to take into consideration the allegations made in thecomplaint only.The Court is not justified in embarking upon anenquiry to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of the investigation.Thematerial placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient toinvestigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness orotherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the caseand also the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in[1]R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjaba n d State of Haryana v.[2]Bhajanlal, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash theproceedings at the initial stage of the investigation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that theconcerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest thepetitioners till completion of the investigation.
In view of the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another[[3]], the StationHouse Officer, Tirumala II Town Police Station, Chittoor District, ishereby directed to follow the procedure contemplated underSection 41-A Cr.P.C. in Crime No.109 of 2014.
With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending inthis Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_____________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
[1]AIR 1960 SC 866[2]AIR 1992 SC 604
[3]2014 (8) SCALE 2502014 (8) SCALE 250