Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH N., J.
M. Lakshminarayana Reddy S/o Chinna Venkata Reddy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5242 of 2023
Decided On : 20-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused facing trial for alleged offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. procedural errors in taking cognizance. (Para 5 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 3. claims of false implication and jurisdiction issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. lack of sanction invalidates cognizance. (Para 18) |
| 5. criminal petition allowed; case quashed. (Para 20) |
-
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are seeking to quash PRC.No.14 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 and are facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x) & 3(2) of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 3(2) 3, 452, 307, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police and the 2nd petitioner is an Inspector of Police in the State Police Department. A private complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners and three others, alleging various offences. The learned Magistrate took the case on file and directed the issuance of notices to the accused.
3. It is alleged that the petitioners, while investigating Crime No.98 of 2015 under Section 3(2) 4, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, had committed specific exercises, including inflicting wounds during custodial torture, to the 2nd respondent. It is also alleged that the petitioners became agitated upon learning that the 2nd respondent’s wife had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate Court for the issuance of a search warrant. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed to submit a report on the search warrant and had returned the warrant, duly informing that the petitioners and others did not cooperate with the investigating officer.
4. Efforts to register the complaint against the petitioners did not yield any results, as the police authorities did not entertain the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against their personnel. As such, a private complaint was filed, and the learned Magistrate took the case on file after recording the sworn statements of the witnesses.
5. The cognizance taken would indicate that the accused Nos.1 and 3 did not act in accordance with the procedure of law and illegally detained the 2nd respondent. The learned Magistrate has basing on the sworn statements of PWs.1 to 8 and duly taking into consideration the list of documents enclosed along with the complaint had taken cognizance for offences under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x) & 3(2) of SC& ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 3(2) 3, 452, 307, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a false case, and the 2nd respondent is a habitual offender involved in several cases. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent, aggrieved by the action of the petitioners in arresting the 2nd respondent in the other cases, has resorted to filing a private complaint by alleging falsehood.
7. It is submitted that the petitioners, Government Servants discharging a statutory function, are protected from the filing of false cases, and there is a bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. A prior sanction ought to have been obtained before registering a case against the petitioners.
8. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint under the provisions of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when there is a procedure set out under the Act for the purpose of investigation.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ places reliance on Asmathunnisa Vs. State of A.P. /b>. (2011) 11 SCC 259 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with an issue relating to utterances of offensive words in a place with public view for attracting the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act. On the facts of that case, the alleged offensive words were not uttered in the place with public view. Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
The absence of prior sanction for prosecution of police officers under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is crucial, and allegations must meet public view criteria under the SC & ST Act.
Section 197 of Cr.P.C. provides protection to public servants for acts done in the discharge of their official duties, and the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a case against them without the pre....
The court ruled that for an offence under the SC/ST Act, abuse must occur in public view, which was not established, leading to quashing of proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 197(1) Cr.P.C, providing protection to public servants from vexatious proceedings, and the court's em....
Point of law : When an innocent person was taken to the police station without arresting him and detained illegally in the custody arid that apart, he was subjected to torture, no criminal antecedent....
The absence of essential elements, such as public view and caste identification, precludes prosecution under the Atrocities Act.
Public servants are protected under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code when acting within the scope of their official duties, and prosecution requires prior sanction if no malicious intent is....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
