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

G.BHAVANI PRASAD
Perugu Gopinath Reddy – Appellant
Versus
P. Sushmitha – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. H. Prahalad Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Advocate.

ORDER

G. Bhavani Prasad, J.—Accused 2 to 6 in Crime No. 65 of 2009 of Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on a reference by the IX Additional Chief Metropo1itan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed the petition to quash the further proceedings against them therein.

2. The private complainant was filed by the 1st respondent herein alleging that the Women Police Station filed a charge sheet in C.C. No.390 of 2008 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code observing therein that it was suggested to the complainant to initiate legal action separately against the offences committed by the accused under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said investigating agency did not take action under the said Special Act and hence, the 1st respondent filed the complaint before the Court after Musheerabad Police Station refused to

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