The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C pra'ing that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal pctiti.n, thc High Court may bc plcased to extend the operation o( the interim or.ler granted .n l7-0q-l()20 in l. A no. 2 ot 2020 in C'LP. No. 3989 of 2020, tilr the rlisposal of thc Cri.rinal Petition. -['his Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memoranclum.f c,r.u^tls of Criminal Petition and upon hearing thc arguments .f sri singam srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the public prosecutor on beha-if of tht' I(t'spondent No.1 and of sri Ch. Dhanamja'a, Atl'ocatt. ror tht' Respondt.nl N o.2. The Court made the following ORDER: -.\ THE HON'BLE SRI JuSTICE E.V.VENTUGOPAL CRIMINAL PEf,ITION No.3989 OF 2O2O ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed to culash the proceedings :rgainst the petitioner in FIR/Crfune No.343 of 2O2O on the lile of Saifabad Polict: Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences und,ll' Section 3(1)(r) of Schectuled Caste and Schedule Tr:b,es (POA) Act,2015.

2. Brief lacts of the case are as follows: On 03.09.202O at 16:30 hours, a comlrlaint was todged by the delacto complainant, K. Chenna, S/o late Chandra, resident of Vanasthalipuram, Hyd,:rabad, at P.S. Saifabacl. In the complaint, he state<l that on O3.O9.2O2O ert around lO:30 hours, he, along with M Ananda Babu, Zonal Secretar5r of JNTUC, r,isited the chambers o[ Snrt. Geetanjali (accused), Manal3e:r (P&lR), D.O., Hyclerabad, to discuss the alleged iil:ga1 and Page2 of7 discriminatory issuance of an office order dated

31.08.2020, which was stated to be in violation of a notilrcation issued by the ZonalOffice on2O.O8.2O2O.

3. According to the complainant, immediately upon their entry into her chambers and without hearing his submissions, the accused stated that she would not a-llow him to sit in front of her as he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) communiqr. The complainant alleges that this act by the Manager humiliated him, particularly in the presence of his Zonal Secretaqr.

4. Thereafter, the Zonal Secretar5r requested the accused to withdraw her remarks and apologize, but she allegedly remained adamant and denied arry wrongdoing. As several employees had gathered at the spot, the complainant felt further humiliated and disgraced by the actions ofthe accused.

5. The complainant also expressed the belief that the accused acted with the support of the SDM, Hyderabad, I ! I I i I i I ! I i ! I I t Page 3 of7 and requested necessary legal action be takr:n against her.

6. Basing on the said complaint, P.S, Saifabad registered a case in Crime No.343 of 2O2O against the accused/petitioner for the offence Section 3(11(r) SC & ST (POA)Act, 2015 (for shortthe Act;).

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor lor respondent/ Police.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner wotdrl submit that firstly, the complaint does not constitute an offence to attract ingredients against the petitiont:r under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. When the petitiorLer 15 an officer, discharging her duties as per the Ru.ies and no such offence has been made by the petitioner crs alleged against her by the 2na respondent/defacto contplainant. He further submits that in the absence of any incriminating material, conducting investigati o n against *- Jhe petitioner is ilegal He also submits; that no i 1 l independent witness has been brought on record by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent in the complaint made by him to the respondent/police. He further submits that the said offence has not taken place in the public view, as such, the same will not attract any ingredients under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. He submits that in order to attract the said offence, it is necessary that the offence ought to have taken place in the public view, that too in the presence of independent witnesses. He further submits that without there being any evidence, within public view, subjecting the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.

9. On the other hand, Sri Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel on record for the 2"d respondent, would submit that unless and until, trial is allowed to be conducted, truth cannot be elicited and therefore, seeks to dismiss the petition, permitting the respondent/police to conduct investigation, in accordance with law.

10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/police would seek to pr:rmit the respondent/police to conduct investigation and f,rle appropriate report before the learned trial Corrrt. 1 1. Having heard the Iearned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd re,spondent, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Petition at the stage of investigation, and that the truth cannot be zLscertained \ unless and until the investigation is completerl.

12. Accordingly, the respondent/police are ,li.rected to conduct the investigation strictly in accordanc:e with law and to file an appropriate report before the tri:rl Court as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of this order.

13. It is made clear that the respondent/potice shall not indulge in any illegal activities under the guise of I I I I l I l investigation, and shall not resort to any coercive steps, including the arrest of the petitioner. L4. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the investigation and may hle a defence, if any, support of her case. Based on such defence, the respondent/police shall proceed with the investigation and file an appropriate report before the trial Court.

15. With the above direction, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /fiRUECow// ION OFFICER Thc Court o[ thc First Atlclitional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hvr{t'ratrad. The S.l{.O., S.rit.rlr.rrl P.S., Hyderabad City. One CC to Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Onc CC kr Ch. L)lurnamjal,a, Advocate [OPUC] 'fhe State of 'I (ou'r) Two C[) Copics e langana, Rep- by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyilerabatl ,i To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 $Z I i I I i I I ) HIGHCOURT DATED:3o/07/2o2s ORDER: CRLP.No.3989 of 2020 t t't f 51O ''c t .J (s( u 22'ttttlg a t \r CHEo CRIMINALPETITON IS DISPOSED OF q*6d #,"