Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yanagani Sathyanarayana, A1 vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 November, 2021
1
KVL, J
Crl.P.No.6156 of 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
Main Case: Criminal Petition No.6156 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
02 15.11.2021 KVL, J
IA No.1 of 2021
Dispensed with for the present.
Crl.P.No.6156 of 2021
Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the
respondent/State.
Issue notice to the 2nd respondent returnable in four
weeks.
List the matter on 15.12.2021.
IA No.2 of 2021
Crl.P.No.6156 of 2021 is filed to quash the
proceedings in CC No.188 of 2021 on the file of the
Special Court for SC/ST cases/VIII Additional Sessions
Judge, Ananthapuramu, against petitioners.
Case of the petitioners is that, FIR No.238 of 2020
was registered on 30.07.2020 falsely implicating the
petitioners for the incident that occurred on
04.05.2020, for the offences under Sections 324, 341,
506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(r)(s) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989; 1st petitioner earlier filed WP
No.9305 of 2020 on 26.05.2020 against the police
officers, including the Sub Inspector of Police,
Mudigubba PS and a constable of the same police
station, in their individual capacity for illegally beating
the 1st petitioner in the police station for the incident
that occurred on 04.05.2020 and in view of the orders
passed in the said writ petition, present case has been
foisted against them; in the counter-affidavit filed by
the Sub Inspector of Police in the said writ petition,
nothing is stated about the offence which is alleged
against the petitioners herein; alleging that the
petitioners are falsely implicated in view of the orders
passed in the writ petition, petitioners sought to quash
CC No.188 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court for
SC/ST (POA) Act cum VIII Additional Sessions Court,
Ananthapuramu.
KVL, J
Crl.P.No.6156 of 2021
The 1st petitioner filed WP No.9305 of 2020 with the
following prayer:
"(a) in not registering FIR against the theft of vehicle bearing
Regn.No.AP 2 BL 8223, on the complaint made by the petitioner on
01.03.2020;
(b) in not registering FIR against respondents 5 & 6 for the incident
occurred on 04.05.2020, in pursuance of the petitioner's
representation dated 05.05.2020 and
(c) to take disciplinary action against respondent Nos.4 and 5."
In the said writ petition, the Sub Inspector of Police,
Mudigubba PS was made as 5th respondent by name and
a police constable of the same police station was
arrayed as 6th respondent by name. In the counter-
affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, it is
specifically stated that Cr.No.240 of 2020 was
registered against the Sub Inspector of Police,
Mudigubba PS, for the offences under Sections 324,
342, 506 read with 34 of IPC on 31.07.2020 and suitable
action will be taken depending on the investigation.
The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.08.2020
directing the Superintendent of Police to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the Sub Inspector
Police and the constable and it was left open to the 1st
petitioner herein to file appropriate application for
contempt against the Superintendent of Police in view
of the prima-facie disobedience on his part in
entrusting the investigation to the Sub Divisional Police
Officer instead of conducting enquiry by himself as
directed in the said writ petition. Nothing is alleged
against the petitioners herein in the counter-affidavit
filed by the Sub Inspector of Police on 20.07.2020 and
in the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintendent of
Police on 31.07.2020.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first
respondent, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Rajev Kourav vs. Baisahab & others1' and
submits that 'if a prima-facie case is made out
disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal
proceeding. But by the very same judgment, the
(2020) 3 SCC 317
KVL, J
Crl.P.No.6156 of 2021
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'evidence produced
by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by
the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at
the initial stage of criminal proceedings'. Prima-facie,
it appears that the present case falls under one of the
exceptional circumstances wherein, an interim order
has to be passed.
In view of the same, there shall be an interim stay
of all further proceedings including appearance of the
petitioners (A.1 to A.4) in CC No.188 of 2021 on the file
of the Sessions Court for the cases under SCs & STs
(POA) Act cum VIII Additional District and Sessions
Court, Ananthapuramu, till 15.12.2021.
______
KVL, J
Note: Furnish CC by 16.11.2021.
(BO)
BSS
