K. LAKSHMAN
Komatireddy Venkat Reddy, S/o Late Papi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
K. Lakshman, J.
Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite affording ample opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.104 of 2014 of Kanagal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section - 504 of IPC and Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act, 1989’).
3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime. As per the complaint of respondent No.2, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are as follows;
ii) The petitioner herein, MLA, addressed the General Body Meeting held at MPDO Office at Kanagal without following protocol and not greeted him, for which the Sarpanchas and MPTCs questioned the MLA, where the MLA insulted him intentionally as he is dalith MPP only and uttered Cheppu To Kodutha Emi Che
All Cargo Movers v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain
State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa
Asmathunisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710
Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra
The court quashed proceedings against the petitioner, finding that the complaint lacked essential ingredients to constitute offences under IPC and the Atrocities Act, deeming continuation of proceedi....
The essential ingredients of an offense under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code must be met for the charge to be sustained.
The court quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act due to lack of public view in the alleged incident, emphasizing the need for specific ingredients to establish the offence.
The court held that reprimanding an employee for workplace discipline does not constitute an intentional insult under IPC Section 504, and quashed the chargesheet due to lack of prima facie evidence.
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.