G.V.V.N.Raju v. S.R.Prasad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atoricities) Act, 1989 s. 3(1)(x)
- Indian Railways Act, 1989 ss. 145, 146, 147
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5475 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner at the relevant time was Inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF). A case was registered against him under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atoricities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The crime being F.I.R. No.351 of 2008 of P.S. Neredmet, Cyberabad, is sought to be quashed in this case. According to the petitioner, on 24.8.2008 at 10.40 AM, he and other CRPF staff were on band bust duty in connection with eviction of illegal encroachers Ramakrishnapuram. of Railway at Arjunawada, One P.V.Sudhakar, Assistant Divisional property Engineer, was in charge of the eviction. According to him, when the demolition squad entered Railway land, the people revolted and raised objections. Political leaders also interfered. Petitioner therefore registered Crime No.70 of 2008 of RPF Post under Sections 145, 146 and 147 of Indian Railways Act, 1989.
He alleges that as a counter blast, respondents 1 to 3 lodged the information with P.S.Neredmet, which was registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. With the assistance of the counsel for petitioner, this Court has perused the report of contesting respondents. Prima facie it discloses the commission of offence as the petitioner allegedly used the caste names while dealing with encroachers. The allegation is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The counsel however submits that on the same day at the same time, two cases were registered – one against petitioner and another in Crime No.352 of 2008 against P.V.Sudhakar, Assistant Divisional Engineer, who filed separate criminal petition for quashing the said crime. It is also his case that Sri Sarve Satyanarayana, Member of Parliament, got the two complaints filed as counter blast to the cases registered against encroachers as well as Member of Parliament.
This Court has given anxious consideration to the contentions made. The submission that the case was registered maliciously cannot be accepted. On the face of it, it discloses the offence and, therefore, all the defences are to be raised before the Criminal Court. If the Court while considering the petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), comes to any conclusion from the material available on record, it would amount to rendering the criminal justice administration process an empty formality. Section 482 of Cr.PC is not meant for the same. Petitioner has to raise all the defences before the Criminal Court. The criminal petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. July 09, 2010 YS _______________
(V.V.S.RAO,J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.