The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in s_upport of the peiition, the High court miy oe pleased to suspend order dated 04.1o.2024 in irt.Mp. No.1667 2024 on the fite of the court of the speciar Judge for Triar of cases under SCs/srs (ponl nit- Cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar. -ot Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. pemmaraju Srivalli Counsel for the Respondent No.l: Mr. E. Ganesh, Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 5: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER Assistant Public prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REvtSION CASE No.3so oF 20.25 ,- ORDER: This criminal Revision case is filed under sections 43g and 442 of BNSS by the petitioner/complainant seeking to set aside the order dated 04.10.2O24 in Crl.M.p.No. t667 of 2024 in Crime No.1t5 of 2Ol9 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar (for short, the trial CourtJ.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has hled a complaint before the police, Godavarikhani_l town p,S., against accused Nos. 1 to 4 stating that the complainant belongs to SC (Madiga) community on the date of incident she went towards road side and was standing at the door and in the meantime, accused Nos. 1 to 3 came there and abused her in filthy language and later when she returned back after throwing out the garbage, accused Nos. 1 to 3 called her as ?rostitute'. She stated that only the Munnurukapu and Goud caste people were residing in the locality in which she was residing and whenever she was coming out, people of said locatity used to abuse her in frlthy language. She further stated that accused Nos.3 and 4 who belong to SC community were also residing in the same locality and they used to join hands rvith accused Nos.l and 2 and others and all of them used to threaten her to kill her and her family . \ 2 members. To that effect, the complainant appr<'i Inspector of Police, Godavarikhani-I town and r: necessary action, but the police did not take a ched the Circle luested to take ry action. On i6. 1 1.20 18, she also sent a petition under R.T.I Act tc furnish the G.D. entry in the FIR, but the police have sent a repiy on L ).12.2018 asking her to provide the details to whom she sent the r:r mplaint through Registered Post and by who it was received. Furthe- the complainant approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police, F amagundam and tlled a compiaint on 29 .Cl.2Ol9 , requesting to t r <e action in the matter, but the Circle Inspector of Police and Assis't nt Commissioner of Police, Ramagrndam did not take any action ani as such she has approached the High Court of Telangana and filr< W.P.No 4281 of 20 i9, dated 28.A2.2AW against the police departmt t t anC in-turn the Government Pleader in the writ petition producerl thc copy of FIR No.I15 of 2Ol9 stating that the case was registered : -r 21.O3.2019 and that the Hon'ble Court has disposed of the sarr r on o1.04.2019 directing the police offrcials to explain the rea; rns for delay in registering the case. Thereupon, the statements ( 'l LWs. 1 to 5 rveie recorded in this crime, but without conducting prol'( r investigation, at the instance of accused Nos.l to 4, concerned lr rlice have filed a closure report referring the case as 'False" and is: ued notice to her informing the same. In the statements of LWs. 1 t I 5 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, they clearly mentione < the facts and involvement of accused Nos.1 to 4, but the statemert ol witnesses were -) not taken into consideration Hence, the complainant liled Crl.M.P.No. 1667 of 2024.

3. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court has dismissed the petition. The relevant portion reads as under: " 7- Tlnugh the compLainant has contend.ed the same, but as seen tlle statements of LWs.1 to 4 recorded_ und.er Section 161 of Cr.p.C., except LW.1 utLn is the complainant, the supporting uitnesses failed. to suppoft her uersion and euen accord.ing to the uersion of LWs.2 to 4 rto such incident took place at the place of incid.ent and only in ord.er to auoid persor* entering into their, complainant and her lutsband" haue raised such i-ssue. Hencc uthateuer the allegattons leueted. bg the amplainant against accused. Nos. 1 to 4 are not found supported bg LWs.l and 4, hence the closure of the case agoinst acansed Nos.7 to 4 bg the Police, Godauaikhanll town is not on turong footing and_ thb Court does not see ang uolid. reasons to consid.er the prager of the complainant and accordinglg, the petition is liabte to be dismissed.. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/ complainant filed the present criminal revision case.

4. Heard Ms. Pemmaraju Srivalti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I - State and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the learned trial Court failed to consider the bias on the part of police investigation, right from the registr-ation of FIR till closure report which amount to pena_l action under the provisions of Section 4 of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and also no reasons were assigned by the police 4 for delay in registration of FIR as per the direction s of this Court in W.P.No.4281 of 2019, dated 15.03.2O19.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the le rrned judge also erred to appreciate while making enquiry into the : -otest petition to note that lhe statement of LW. I clearly refers to the l 3TV footage both audio and video available at the place of incident a-t I even the police also ignored the same during the course of investig r ion and filed t-he closure report which is the cruciai scientific and te( i nical evidence to be considered during the course of investigation to br ng out the truth. The trial Court u,ithout summoning the witnesses t rs dismissed the prct-est petilion, r'-,hich is causing irreparable loss 1 l the oetitioner's reputation and victimizing him to insult and defame t on. Hence sceks indulgence of this Court.

7. Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Proset,r tor appearit.rg for respondent No.1 - State would submit that thoroug r investigation has been conducted and none of the witnesses have sup rorted the case of the prosecution and upon careful scrutiny of the ml erial available on record rightly, the trial Court passed the im6 r gned order ancl interference of this Court at this stage is unwarrar t :d. Therefore , he seeks lo dismiss the Revision. a. Having regarcl to the submissions made b1 both the learnecl counsel and upon perusing the material available olt record, this Court 5 does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment dated 04' ro'2024 in crl-M.p.No. L66z of 2o24 on the rrle of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (pOA) Act_cum_III Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar. i 9 Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. L LAKSHMI DEPUTY RE TRAR To, /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1- The Special Judge for Trial of Case Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. s under SC s (POA) Act-cum-lll

2. The Station House Officer, GDK-I Town Police Statron, peddapalli Diskict. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Ms. Pemmaraju Snvalli. Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kam/GR W HIGH COURT DATED:1310812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.350 of 2025 '.:... ,-.-.i. ,:iM I DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE @'( \u