2018 Supreme(AP) 845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
K. Ratna Kishore - Appellant
Vs.
Dr. Yekula Kiran Kumar And Another - Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 8685 and 9840 of 2017
Decided On : 27-02-2018
For the Appellant : T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, Counselt
For the Respondent: Dr. Y. Kiran Kumar, Party-in-Person
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120-B and 506 read with 149 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 - Section 3 (1) (ix), 3 (1) (x) and 3(2)(vii) - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Whether sanction is required to prosecute petitioners - Whether allegations made in protest petition would constitute an offence punishable under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 - Held, Petitioners though dispute is akin to service, Magistrate did not apply his mind to facts and material available on record and took cognizance erroneously and Magistrate failed to verify allegations - Respondent failed to make out prima facie case against these petitioners to wreck vengeance and by abusing process of Court - Continuation of proceedings against petitioners illegal and liable to be quashed by law - Criminal Petition allowed - ( Paras 59 to 61)
ORDER :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Criminal Petition No.8685 of 2017 is filed by A3 K. Ranta Kishore and Criminal Petition No.9840 of 2017 is filed by A1, A2 and A4 to A8 i.e. Dr. K.Varaprasad, Dr. U. Surya Kumari, Dr. Vishnu Prasad, V. Prem Kumar, M. Manjula, Prameswara Reddy and Dr. MBR Sharma to quash the proceedings against them in PRC No.24 of 2017 on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 506 read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (ix), 3 (1) (x) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act').
2. The 1st respondent - Dr. Yekula Kiran Kumar, is the de facto complainant, and presently he is working as a Professor of General Surgery in Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi.
3. The 1st respondent lodged a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, and the Magistrate in turn, by exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 referred the case to the police, who in turn registered a crime against the petitioners for various offences, and investigated into the same and filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, by referring the case as 'Mistake of fact', while issuing notice to the 1st respondent.
4. On receipt of notice, the 1st respondent filed a protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, who in turn, recorded the statement of the 1st respondent and one Gollamudi Raja Sundara Babu as PWs.1 and 2 and took cognizance of the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections, against the petitioners.
5. The 1st respondent is a Professor in General Surgery in Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi. Earlier, he worked as a Professor of General Surgery in Government General Hospital, Guntur Medical College, Guntur. He joined service in the year 1991 as a Civil Assistant Surgeon. In the year 2004, he was promoted and posted as Associate Professor, Sri Ranga Raya Medical College, Kakinada. The 1st respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioners are the superiors of the 1st respondent and the petitioners allegedly discriminated the 1st respondent and denied promotion during the year 2003-2004, and reverted him as Assistant Professor. The petitioners did not implement the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and failed to follow the roster point with an intention to cause harm to the 1st respondent. The 2nd witness represented to SC and ST Commission about irregularities and the Commission took the complaint and addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, who in turn, directed the Station House Officer, Nagarampalem, to register the case. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Nagarampalem Police Station registered a case in Crime No.242 of 2011 under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The police sent a report to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and SC & ST Commissioner and after enquiry, report was submitted.
6. On 31.01.2013, A1 to A6 gave notional promotion but subsequently, the said order was withdrawn. A3 worked as a Secretary to the Medical and Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. As the 1st respondent was not promoted intentionally and also withdrawn the notional promotion by A2 to A7 and submitted a false and fabricated report to the Government by A4 to A7 and to the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by A2 to A4 as such, they are liable for punishment for the offences under the provisions of the Act.
7. It is further contended that on 23.11.2012, the 1st respondent was called to the chambers of the Principal, Medical College, Guntur by A1 and A2 and he was threatened to withdraw the case in Crime No.242 of 2011 filed by the 2nd witness G. Rajasundarababu. A3 also threatened that if the 1st respondent continues the case filed by him, the Government will also take action against him. On 26.08.2013, the 1st respondent approached the Superintendent o