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

2018 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 4388

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
A3 K. Ranta Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Yekula Kiran Kumar – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.8685 of 2017 | Criminal Petition No.9840 of 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy
For the Respondents: None mentioned

The court affirmed that allegations must substantiate prima facie evidence for prosecution under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, particularly in service disputes, which should be resolved through administrative channels.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(ix), 3(1)(x), 3(2)(vii) - Criminal conspiracy and intimidation allegations - Petitioners challenged proceedings quashing FIR where complainant accused superiors of discrimination and intimidation - Magistrate's cognizance based on protest petition held flawed, lacking prima facie evidence. (Paras 6, 12, 42, 58)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The Court held that to ensure fair administration, cognizance must be scrutinized rigorously to avoid misuse of protective statutes; asserted rigorous examination of allegations is necessary to prevent frivolous claims. (Paras 57, 58)

Facts of the case:
The 1st respondent, a Scheduled Caste professor, alleged discrimination and intimidation by superiors over promotion issues. Allegations led to criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners, who contended procedural violations and lack of substantiation.

Findings of Court:
Noticeably, the Magistrate failed to establish prima facie case against petitioners; proceedings quashed asserting that service disputes should not invoke penal provisions under the Act.

Issues: Whether necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. applied for prosecution? Whether allegations constituted offences under the SC & ST (PoA) Act?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that service matters are governed under administrative rules and disputes must be resolved through the tribunal, not via claims under the SC & ST Act.

Result: Both petitions allowed, proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of complaints and accusations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments against prosecution due to lack of sanction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. sanction requirement under section 197 cr.p.c. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. criteria for applying section 197. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
5. consequences of applying section 197. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
6. clarification of what constitutes criminal conspiracy. (Para 35 , 36)
7. court's observations on prior case law. (Para 37 , 38)
8. quashing of proceedings due to failure to establish prima facie case. (Para 39 , 58)
9. final ruling on the case. (Para 59)

COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Petition No.8685 of 2017 is filed by A3 K. Ranta Kishore and Criminal Petition No.9840 of 2017 is filed by A1, A2 and A4 to A8 i.e. Dr. K.Varaprasad, Dr. U. Surya Kumari, Dr. Vishnu Prasad, V. Prem Kumar, M. Manjula, Prameswara Reddy and Dr. MBR Sharma to quash the proceedings against them in PRC No.24 of 2017 on the file of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 506 read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (ix), 3 (1) (x) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The 1st respondent – Dr. Yekula Kiran Kumar, is the de facto complainant, and presently he is working as a Professor of General Surgery in Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi.

3. The 1st respondent lodged a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, and the Magistrate in turn, by exercising power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., referred the case to the police, who in turn registered a crime against the petitioners for various offences, and investigated into the same and filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, by referring the case as ‘Mistake of fact’, while issuing notice to the 1st respondent.

4. On receipt of notice, the 1st respondent filed a protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, who in turn, recorded the statement of the 1st respondent and one Gollamudi Raja Sundara Babu as PWs.1 and 2 and took cognizance of the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections, against the petitioners.

5. The 1st respondent is a Professor in General Surgery in Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupathi. Earlier, he worked as a Professor of General Surgery in Government General Hospital, Guntur Medical College, Guntur. He joined service in the year 1991 as a Civil Assistant Surgeon. In the year 2004, he was promoted and posted as Associate Professor, Sri Ranga Raya Medical College, Kakinada. The 1st respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioners are the superiors of the 1st respondent and the petitioners allegedly discriminated the 1st respondent and denied promotion during the year 2003-2004, and reverted him as Assistant Professor. The petitioners did not implement the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and failed to follow the roster point with an intention to cause harm to the 1st respondent. The 2nd witness represented to SC and ST Commission about irregularities and the Commission took the complaint and addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, who in turn, directed the Station House Officer, Nagarampalem, to register the case. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Nagarampalem Police Station registered a case in Crime No.242 of 2011 under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The police sent a report to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and SC & ST Commissioner and after enquiry, report was submitted.

6. On 31.01.2013, A1 to A6 gave notional promotion but subsequently, the said order was withdrawn. A3 worked as a Secretary to the Medical and Health Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. As the 1st respondent was not promoted intentionally and also withdrawn the notional promotion by A2 to A7 and submitted a

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 Back to top