T.SUNIL CHOWDARY
I. V. Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
” 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
Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.