Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 547 (AP)

Kuruva Prahalladu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-09-01

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - The criminal revision case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.547 of 2019 in SC ST SC No.114 of 2017 on the file of Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 2. Heard Sri Thota Gopinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent. 3. The petitioner who is the accused filed an application before the trial Court under Section 239 of Cr.P.C to discharge the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for brevity "SC ST Act"). 4. The case of the prosecution is that the alleged offence took place on 06.04.2016 at 7.00 p.m. at Malyala Railway Station. The defacto complainant K.Balaraju lodged a report with police on 20.05.2016 at 11.00 a.m. As per the complaint, on 06.04.2016 at 7.00 p.m. the petitioner/accused abused and insulted him naming his caste near Malyala Railway Station, Malyala. It is stated that police after investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file. 5. The revision petitioner has approached the Court below by filing discharge petition mainly on the ground that there is delay of 1 months in lodging the complaint, as the alleged incident took place on 06.04.2016, whereas complaint was lodged on 20.05.2016. The other ground is that the allegations in the complaint are civil in nature and the averments with regard to abusing the defacto complainant in the name of his caste are absent. Even assuming that the petitioner abused the complainant, it is not in the public eye, which attracts the provisions of SC ST Act. Furthermore, except recording 161 Cr.P.C statements of interested persons, no other independent witnesses were examined. 6. Even assuming that the petitioner abused the complainant, it is not in the public eye, which attracts the provisions of SC ST Act. Furthermore, except recording 161 Cr.P.C statements of interested persons, no other independent witnesses were examined. 6. The learned Judge dismissed the discharge application holding that the F.I.R and 161 Cr.P.C statement of defacto complainant goes to show that on 06.04.2016 at 7.00 p.m. when the defacto complainant along with his mother Lakshmi Devi and his uncle Giddaiah were coming to village from Malyala Railway station, the petitioner came across them on motorcycle and on seeing him, the defacto complainant told that he paid advance to A.Lalithamma, W/o Purushotham Reddy and A.Sreedevi, D/o Purushotham Reddy for purchase of land in an extent of Ac.7.55 cents in S.No.218/1A as per the direction of SC Corporation and asked the petitioner to take return of advance amount paid by him to A.Lalithamma and Sreedevi. On that the petitioner abused the defacto complainant in the name of his caste. The Judge held that there is no prima facie case made out by the accused and refused to entertain the discharge petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present revision. 7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner has reiterated the grounds raised before the trial Court. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner before this Court as well as before the trial Court are the subject to evidence and trial and basing on the said grounds, the petitioner cannot be discharged. Prima facie the allegations in the complaint do attract the offences charged against the petitioner and all the grounds which are raised before this Court may be helpful to the petitioner during the course of trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases has laid down the guidelines when the Courts can discharge / quash the complaint. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the parameters. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court requires no interference of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.