Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 421 (AP)

D. Bhaskara Rao v. State Of A. P.

2006-03-23

P.S.NARAYANA

body2006
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel on record. ( 2 ) SRI Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that in the light of the orders passed by this Court in Crl. R. C. No. 1517 of 2002, SC no. 141/8/2000 on the file of the Special sessions Judge for S. C. and ST. (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act ), guntur, cannot be further proceeded with. The learned counsel also would contend that it is totally unjust on the part of the learned judge in insisting to proceed against the petitioner under Section 506 IPC, though in fact, the petitioner was discharged. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise, the ingredients of section 506 IPC are not attracted and hence in the light of the prior orders, further proceedings in S. C. No. 141/s/2000 be quashed. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor would maintain that in the light of the fact that in the prior order it was clearly stated that the petitioner shall stand discharged, there is no question of further proceeding with the matter either under Section 506 IPC or any other provision whatsoever. ( 4 ) SRI Krishna Murthy on behalf of the 2nd respondent-de-facto complainant would maintain that inasmuch as no specific order was made by the learned Judge in relation to section 506 IPC, there is every justification on the part of the learned Judge to further proceed with the matter so far as it relates to section 506 IPC. ( 5 ) THE petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Bapatla. The de-facto complainant, R-2 herein was working as Sub-Registrar, bapatla. On 14-10-1999 at about 4-45 p. m. , the petitioner went to the Sub Registrar s officer and enquired about his plot registration. Then the de-facto complainant replied that he can go and enquire with her staff. The petitioner found fault with the de facto complainant and abused her by Caste and also threatened her that he will see her end and also see that she will be caught by a. C. B. people and put her in jail for one month. Then the de-facto complainant replied that he can go and enquire with her staff. The petitioner found fault with the de facto complainant and abused her by Caste and also threatened her that he will see her end and also see that she will be caught by a. C. B. people and put her in jail for one month. On the next day, i. e. , on 15-10-1999 the de-facto complainant gave a report to the police and the same was registered as a case in crime No. 203 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 353 IPC and section 3 (1 ) (x) of the Act. It is also stated that the petitionerfiled Criminal Petition No. 5347of 1999 before this Court to quash the First information Report and this Court by an order dated 2-12-1999 quashed the First information Report under Section 353 IPC and after investigation the police filed the charge sheet under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Act. On 12-09-2002 he filed Crl. M. P. No. 866 of 2002 in S. C. No. 141/s/2000 on the file of the iv Additional Special Sessions Judge, Guntur for discharge and on 18-09-2002, the learned judge dismissed the same and framed three charges viz. , i. Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, ii. Sections 353 IPC and iii. Section 506 IPC. The petitioner filed Crl. R. C. No. 1517 of 2002 before this Court for quashing the Order made in Crl. M. P. No. 866 of 2002. This Court by order dated 29-01-2002, allowed the revision. But, however, the charge in relation to Section 506 IPC was not referred to. It is also stated that in light of the above order, the learned Judge is insisting that he would further proceed with the matter so far as the charge under Section 506 IPC is concerned. ( 6 ) THE other factual details need not be dealt with further. It is suffice to say that the learned Judge of this Court in Crl. R. C. 1517 of 2002 made an elaborate order and in fact, the learned Judge had taken into consideration the allegations made in the charge sheet and the other material available on record. The learned Judge also observed as hereunder:"the requirement of investigation should be by an officer not below the rank of sub-Divisional Police Officer has a definite purpose to serve. The learned Judge also observed as hereunder:"the requirement of investigation should be by an officer not below the rank of sub-Divisional Police Officer has a definite purpose to serve. It is he who has to record the statement of the complainant and other persons who have witnessed the incident. On recording such statements, he has to form an opinion of himself. It needs to be observed that the statements recorded by L. W. 18 were in the context of the offence under Section 353 IPC. L. W. 19 cannot just adopt the same. Failure of L. W. 19 to record the statement of L. Ws. 1 to 10 would certainly befatal to the entire investigation. In law, it is to be proceeded as though L. W. 19 did not record the statements of L. Ws. 1 to 10 at all. Once there did not exist any statements of L. Ws. 1 to 10, hardly there exists any basis for the trial Court to proceed against the petitioner herein. In view of the material irregularity committed by L. W. 19 in not recording statements of L. Ws. 1 to 10, the charge against the petitioner cannot be maintained and accordingly the petitioner shall stand discharged. The criminal Revision case is accordingly allowed. " ( 7 ) APART from the observations made by the learned Judge referred to supra, while allowing criminal revision case, it is pertinent to note that the concerned Court being a special Court cannot deal with an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. It is needless to say that the said offence may have to be tried by the competent Magistrate, in accordance with the provisions of Cr. P. C. and I. P. C. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise, when specifically the learned Judge in the order referred to supra, made it clear that the petitioner shall stand discharged, the said order needs no further clarification ai all. It is needless to say that further proceeding with the matter is definitely abuse of process of the proceedings of the court and also the law as well. In the light of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further proceedings can be proceeded with against the petitioner in s. C. No. 141/s/2000 on the file of the learned special Sessions 3 Judge, Guntur. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings are hereby quashed.