2023 Supreme(AP) 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
G.Siva Ramudu, S/o. G.Thippaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 8279 of 2023
Decided on : 01-12-2023

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of an affidavit to support the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the need for prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3), and the necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C for cases against public servants.

Headnote:

Criminal Petition - Quashing of Order - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C - Sections 307, 354, 166, 355, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and Amendment Act, 2015 - The court discussed the scope of Section 156(3) CrPC, the requirement of an affidavit to support the application, and the need for prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). The court also emphasized the importance of verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations and the need for prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C for cases against public servants. The decision highlighted the non-application of mind by the learned Sessions Judge to the allegations and the illegality of the order, leading to its quashing.

Fact of the Case:

The defacto complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, alleging offences under various sections of IPC and SC & ST (POA) Act. The Sessions Court forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police for investigation. The petitioners contended that the complaint was an abuse of the process of law and cited previous cases filed by the complainant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Sessions Judge had not followed the requirements of Section 156(3) CrPC, the need for an affidavit to support the application, and the necessity of prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3). The court also noted the non-application of mind by the learned Sessions Judge to the allegations and the illegality of the order, leading to its quashing.

Issues: Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 156(3) CrPC, lack of affidavit to support the application, failure to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations, and the need for prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C for cases against public servants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for an affidavit to support the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the requirement of prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3), and the necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C for cases against public servants. The court also highlighted the importance of verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations and the non-application of mind by the learned Sessions Judge to the allegations.

Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The learned Sessions Judge was directed to pass an appropriate order as per law.