SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(AP) 1382

T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
I. V. Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent


ORDER :

” These two criminal petitions are filed (Cri.P.No.8269 of 2011 by A1 and A2, and Cri.P.No.9066 of 2011 by A3 and A4) under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings Cr.No.242 of 2011 of Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District.

2. Since the point involved in both the petitions is one and the same, I am inclined to dispose of these two petitions by this common order.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is two-fold, viz., 1) Registration of Crime No. 242 of 2011 against the petitioners under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not legally sustainable; and 2) the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint constitute the alleged offence. The contention of learned counsel for fourth respondent is that the petitioners have intentionally insulted and humiliated Dr. Y. Kiran Kumar by delaying promotion to him as he belongs to Scheduled Caste community.

4. On 22.08.2011, the fourth respondent submitted a complain





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top