APHC010040432019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 245/2019 Between:

N.ramanjaneya Reddy ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3468/2018 Between:

N. Ramanjaneya Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Bathula Ismail and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KHAJA KHUTUBUDDIN SHAIK

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

The petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are present.

2. Criminal Revision Case No. 3468 of 2018 was filed challenging the order dated 15.10.2018 in Crl.M.P. No. 917 of 2017, whereby the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C‟) in SC/ST C.C. No. 39 of 2016 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, was dismissed. The case relates to the alleged offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity „the SCs/STs (PoA) Act‟) and Sections 506, 324, 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „the I.P.C‟).

3. Criminal Revision Case No. 245 of 2019 was filed challenging the framing of charges in the above-mentioned case by the learned Trial Court. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who is present before this Court, has filed an affidavit stating that he is the unofficial respondent in both cases and that he had filed a private complaint, which later culminated in the above- mentioned C.C. In the affidavit, the complainant/respondent submits that, on the advice of his well-wishers, he has decided not to pursue the above- mentioned case. He has no objection if the proceedings therein are closed. When the complainant was asked to verify the averments of the affidavit, he stated that the affidavit was signed by him and that he is aware of its contents. He further affirms that he has given the affidavit out of his free will and without any coercion or undue influence.

4. The complainant/unofficial respondent had filed a private complaint before the learned Trial Court under Section 190 read with Section 200 of „the Cr.P.C‟. The learned Trial Judge did not resort to invoking Section 156(3) of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and straightaway recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and issued process to the petitioner, who was then working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Gadivemula Police Station, under whose jurisdiction the complainant was residing. There was no certificate filed before the learned Trial Court to show that the respondent/complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that when the sworn statement of the complainant (who was examined as P.W.1) was recorded, the “religion” column reflected that he belonged to the Muslim religion. The complainant subsequently tendered a caste certificate claiming that he belongs to the SC Mala community. However, there is no averment of the respondent/complainant in the sworn statement to that effect. Unless there is a specific averment on oath that the complainant belongs to the SC Mala community, taking cognizance of the offence under „the SC/ST (PoA) Act.,‟ is not legal, justifiable, proper and reasonable. Averments in pleadings form the backbone of any cause.

5. Be that as it may, in view of the settlement of the dispute between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, nothing further remains for adjudication either before this Court or before the learned Trial Court.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of as compromised. Considering the same, the petitioner is acquitted under Section

320(8) of „the Cr.P.C‟. No order as t