FIRs filed with malicious intent, especially as retaliatory actions, can be quashed to prevent abuse of legal processes. The court emphasized safeguarding against harassment in the judicial system.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the F.I.R. No.258 of 2015 on the file of Marredpally Police Station, Hyderabad City - Respondent No.4.

2. Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. No representation on behalf of respondent No.5.

3. Brief facts of case:

3.1 Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioners were selected as Junior Civil Judges on 01.10.2013 and they were sent for training in the Judicial Academy at Secunderabad and Bangalore along with others pursuant to the proceedings issued by the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the petitioners have undergone training in the Judicial Academy from 28.08.2015 to 27.10.2015. When they were undergone training at Karnataka Judicial Academy, Bangalore, respondent No.5 misbehaved with them due to happening of certain incidents in the room, where the petitioners and respondent No.5 were staying. Immediately, the petitioners have informed the same to the Assistant Director and Administrative Officer of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy and submitted a written report to the Director, Judicial Academy on 05.10.2015 narrating the entire incident that was happened in the intervening night of 30.09.2015/01.10.2015 and the said complaint was forwarded to the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. On 10.10.2015 the writ petitioners came to know that respondent No.5 lodged a complaint against them before respondent No.4 on 09.10.2015 and basing on the said complaint, F.I.R. No. 258 of 2015 was registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter called for brevity as ‘the Act’). Hence, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the petitioners undergone training in the Judicial Academy from 28.08.2015 to 27.10.2015 at Secunderabad as well as Bangalore in Karnataka State, they gave report to the Director, Judicial Academy on 05.10.2015 against respondent No.5 narrating the incident that was happened in the intervening night of 30.09.2015/01.10.2015 and basing upon the same, after conducting enquiry the Director of Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy submitted a report to the Registrar (Vigilance), erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Respondent No.5 with a malafide intention to cover up her mistake, lodged a complaint with bald allegations against the petitioners as a counter blast, though they have not abused respondent No.5 in the name of her caste and the ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of the Act does not attract.

4.2 He further submitted the petitioners were discharging their official duties by staying in the Judicial Academy. However, respondent No.4 without obtaining permission from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice, registered the F.I.R. No.258/2015 basing upon the complaint of respondent No.5, which is contrary to law.

4.3 In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments:

i) Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers Association vs. Union of India , (1994) 4 SCC 687

ii) Indian Association of Lawyers, Nellore and another v. State of A.P. and others , 1995 SCC OnLine AP 518

iii) Mohammad Wajid and another v. State of U.P. and others , (2023) SCC