Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Y.Praveen Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 July, 2026
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Date of reserved for orders :04.05.2026
Date of pronouncement :17.07.2026
Date of uploading : 17.07.2026
APHC010217472023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3327]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3174/2023
Between:
1. Y.PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O Y.NAGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS OCC. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DHONE TOWN PS,
DHONE TOWN KURNOOL DISTRICT. PRESENTLY WORKING
AS SUB INSPECTOR VIGILENCE, TRANSCO, KURNOOL.
2. G.SUDHAKAR, S/O CHINNA LAXMANNA AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS OCC. CONSTABLE PC NO 3565, DHONE TOWN PS
DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARVATHI.
2. Y RAMMOHAN, S/O. Y.RAMALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS OCC. POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE 2473 INDIAN HINDU
ST , YERUKALA BY CASTE DHONE PS, DHONE TOWN, NEAR
AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE KURNOOL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS
praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds
of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to to call for the records
relating to SC/ST SC No. 2/2023 on the file of VI Addl. sessions Judge
cum Special court for the trial of cases under ST ST (POA) Act at Kurnool
including the cognziance dated 5.1.2023 and to quash the same against
the petitioners/A1 and A2 and pass
2 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that
in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal
Petition,the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further
proceedings in SC/ST SC No. 2/2023 on the file of VI Addl. sessions
Judge cum Special court for the trial of cases under ST ST (POA) Act at
Kurnool including cognizance order dated 5.1.2023 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that
in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal
Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the
order granted by this Hon'ble Court in IA. No. 01 of 2023 in
CRLPNo.3174 of 2023,dated 02.05.2023 and dismiss the CRLP.3174 of
2023 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioners/accused:
Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy for Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR
The Court made the following:
3 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3174 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners/
Accused Nos.1 and 2, to quash the proceedings in SC/ST
Sessions Case No.2 of 2023 on the file of the learned VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for
trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Kurnool (for brevity
‘the learned Special Judge’), arising out of a complaint filed by
2nd respondent/complainant under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was taken on file by the
learned Special Judge for the offences punishable under Section
506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity
‘IPC‘) and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for brevity
‘the Act, 2015’).
2. The allegations in the complaint, in brief, are as
follows.
4 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
Respondent No.2/complainant was working as a Head
Constable in Dhone Town Police Station from the year 2019, as
an attached DO (Duty Order), from Kowthalam Police Station to
Dhone Town Police Station since 2019; that the accused No.1
was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, and accused No.2 was
working as a Constable, in the same police station and they
belong to Reddy and Yadava caste, respectively.
On 22.03.2022, basing on some allegations, the
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool suspended the respondent
No.2/ complainant; that on 31.03.2022 at about 9.20 a.m.,
while the accused Nos.1 and 2 were proceeding on a motorcycle
near K.E.Jayanna House, Kothapeta, near Ayyappa Swamy
Temple, Dhone Town, the respondent No.2/complainant asked
accused No.1 as to why he got him suspended and what was
his fault, and on that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were alleged to have
abused him by touching his caste stating that ‘నువ్వ ెందిరా
మమ్ము లను అడిగేదిరా, ఏరుకుల నా కొడకా, నీ బ్రతుకెంతరా, మీకే బ్రమోషన్స్ వచ్చే ది
కదరా, మేమే వ్నుకకుపోతునాా మ్మ కదరా’, so saying the accused Nos.1 and
2 were alleged to have threatened the respondent No.2
/complainant with dire consequences; that L.W2/Ediga
Jayamma, L.W3/Chakali Prasad and L.W4/Boya Shankar
5 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
witnessed the incident and when the same was questioned,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were alleged to have uttered as ‘ఈ ఎరుకలి నా
కొడుకుది ఎకుు వెంది’ and they were alleged to have warned them too,
as to not to reveal to anybody. Though the respondent
No.2/complainant made a complaint to the Superintendent of
Police, Kurnool, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dhone and
the District Collector, Kurnool, no action was taken by them
against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the private complaint.
3. The learned Special Judge, vide Order dated
05.01.2023 in CFR No.2098 of 2022, took the complaint on file
against the accused Nos.1 and 2 as SC/ST Sessions Case No.2
of 2023 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989, Kurnool. Challenging the same, the
present Criminal Petition came to be filed, seeking the Court to
quash the proceedings in said Sessions Case.
4. This Court vide Order dated 02.05.2023 in I.A.No.1
of 2023 granted interim stay of all further proceedings against
the petitioners/A1 and A2 in SC/ST Sessions Case No.2 of 2023
6 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
pending on the file of the learned Special Judge. The respondent
No.2 /complainant filed petition, praying the Court to vacate
the interim stay.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners/A1 and A2 that on 07.03.2022 the Inspector of
Police, Dhone Urban Police Station submitted report, stating
inter alia that respondent No.2/complainant, working as Head
Constable in Dhone Police Station, was not discharging his
duties effectively, and according to the report, one Pilaka Ravi
and Katika Ramana were indulging in illegal activities like
Ganja, Matka etc., and the staff of Dhone Police Station made
best efforts to catch hold them, but the same proved futile, and
on suspicion, police verified Call Details Records (CDR) of 2nd
respondent /complainant and came to conclusion that 2nd
respondent/ complainant colluded with the said Pilaka Ravi
and Katika Ramana and as and when raids were proposed to be
conducted, the said information was passed on, by 2nd
respondent/complainant to them.
According to learned counsel, the CDR shows that 2nd
respondent/complainant and aforesaid persons are frequently
7 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
in touch with each other, and there were as many as 46 calls
during the period from 03.01.2022 to 09.02.2022 from his
personal phone, and in respect of other person i.e. Katika
Ramana, upon analysis of CDR of said Ramana, it was found
that 2nd respondent/complainant made about 466 phone calls
to him from 01.08.2021 to 31.01.2022, on that 2nd respondent
/ complainant reprimanded his illegal activities with anti-social
elements and passing of information to them as and when raids
were likely to be conducted. Learned counsel submits that
pursuant to the said illegal activities of 2nd respondent
/complainant, a disciplinary action was initiated against
respondent No.2/complainant, and in pursuance of the Report
submitted by the Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of
Police, Kurnool suspended 2nd respondent vide Order dated
10.03.2022.
6. The learned counsel further contended that 2nd
respondent was under the impression that he was suspended at
the behest of 1st petitioner/A1 informing the Inspector of Police,
who in turn submitted the report to the Superintendent of
Police, Kurnool, which led to his suspension, and upon that, on
31.03.2022 at about 9.20 a.m. 2nd respondent /complainant
8 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
abused the petitioners /A.1 and A.2 while they were proceeding
on motorcycle at about 9.30 a.m. stating that because of the
petitioners/A1 and A2, he lost his job. Having abused the
petitioners/A1 and A2, surprisingly, 2nd respondent made a
complaint to the authorities and also made a private complaint
at a belated stage as against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the
aforesaid offences.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 would
further contend that L.W.2-Ediga Jayamma, L.W.3-Chakali
Prasad and L.W.4- Boya Shankar, who were listed as witnesses
in the private complaint, are accused in so many cases and
their statements against the petitioners /police officers are not
trustworthy. Learned counsel would further contend that the
case of the petitioners/A1 and A2 is squarely covered within the
observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v.
Ch.Bhajanlal and Ors.1 case, and as a counterblast to the report
submitted by the Inspector of Police, upon the information
furnished by the petitioners, which led to his suspension,
thinking that petitioners/A1 and A2 are behind the said report,
2nd respondent made this false complaint, only with a view to
1
AIR 1992 SC 604.
9 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
wreck vengeance against the petitioners/A1 and A2, filed the
complaint after lapse of 20 days.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd
respondent / complainant submits that irrespective of the facts
of the case, when the allegations in the private complaint are
specific, truth or otherwise of the same, has to be decided in the
course of trial. He further submitted that on the date of the
incident, 2nd respondent/complainant made a complaint before
police, and when the police refused to accept the same, 2nd
respondent resorted in fling the present private complaint.
Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
9. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No.1/State too concurred with the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal
Petition.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and
A2, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent
10 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
No.2/complainant, and perused the entire material available on
record.
11. The offences alleged against the petitioners/A1 and
A2 are Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act, 2015 and Section 506 of
IPC. Under Section 3 (1) (r) & 3 (1) (s) of the Act, 2015,
whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent
to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view, and abuses any member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any
place within public view, is punishable. The essential
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC
are that the accused threatens someone with injury to his
person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation or
property of another in whom the former was interested and the
accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of
offence and to cause the victim to perform any act which he was
not legally bound to do.
12. In the case on hand, the allegation is that on
31.03.2022 at about 9.20 a.m., while the respondent No.2 /
11 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
complainant was proceeding near house of one K.E.Jayanna in
Kothapet, Dhone, on his personal work, he saw the
petitioners/A1 and A2, who were allegedly proceeding on a
motorcycle at the same time, and the respondent No.2
/complainant was alleged to have questioned the petitioners /
A1 and A2 as to why they got him suspended and what were the
mistakes committed by him, and on that, the petitioners /A.1
and A.2 are alleged to have abused him touching his caste.
According to 2nd respondent/ complainant, the said incident
was witnessed by three witnesses viz. L.W.2- C.Prasad, L.W.3-
Ediga Jayamma and L.W.4-Boya Shankar. A perusal of the
statements of L.W.2-C.Prasad, L.W.3- Ediga Jayamma and
L.W.4-Boya Shankar goes to show that on 31.03.2022, while
they were passing nearby the scene of offence, they found the
petitioners/A1 and A2 and respondent No.2/complainant
shouting at each other, and that when the aforesaid listed
witnesses questioned the petitioners/A1 and A2 about the
same, petitioners/A1 and A2 were alleged to have abused the
respondent No.2/ complainant touching his caste and also
threatened them to go away.
12 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
13. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners/A1 and A2 that the respondent No.2 /complainant
was suspecting that the petitioners/A1 and A2 are the persons
behind his suspension and to wreck vengeance against them,
concocted a false story, by arraying the aforesaid witnesses,
who got chequered history, and roped the petitioners/A1 and
A2 into the false case that they abused him touching his caste.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 would further
contend that the learned Special Judge, basing on the
statements of witnesses, who were having chequered history,
without verifying the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise, erred in straightaway taking cognizance of the case
and ordering to issue summons to the petitioners/A1 and A2.
He placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in
Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand and another2, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: (paragraph Nos.13 and 14)
“13. The principles governing summoning of an accused in a criminal
case as well as parameters for quashing criminal proceedings are
well-settled. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter
of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 454.
13 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning
the accused must reflect application of mind to the facts of the case
and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate must carefully
scrutinize the evidence brought on record and determine whether
any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate may even
himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit
answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise,
and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or
any of the accused3.
14. When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal
proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine
the matter with greater care. It will not be just enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other
attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection, and try to read in between the lines. The Court while
exercising its Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or Article
226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a
case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well
as the materials collected in the course of investigation4.
3
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400 and
Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534.
4
Mohd. Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 20 SCC 219.
14 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
He also placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down
in Mohd. Wajid and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh5, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: (paragraph Nos.35 to 37)
“35. However, as observed earlier, the entire case put up by the first
informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At
this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for
quashing of an FIR in Bhajan Lal1. The parameters are: (SCC
pp.378-79, para 102)
“102. … (1) where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or ‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused;
5
(2023) 20 Supreme Court Cases 219 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951.
15 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions and in the facts
and circumstances of the case, he submits that the present
complaint is manifestly frivolous, vexatious and malicious, and
it is manifestly attended with mala fides and is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the
petitioners due to personal grudge.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/complainant would contend that at first
instance, the respondent No.2/complainant reported the
incident to police officials, but they did not take any action
against the petitioners/A1 and A2, and as such, he resorted to
file private complaint against them, and that there are specific
accusations, and truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled in
the complaint against the petitioners/A1 and A2, has to be seen
16 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
at the time of trial, but could not be tested at this stage. He
placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Swaran
Singh and Others v. State through Standing Counsel and
another6, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
(paragraph No.8)
“8.It may be noted that the trial has still to be held and the appellants
will have an opportunity of establishing their innocence in the trial. At
this stage all that the High Court can see in the petition under Section
482 CrPC or in a writ petition, is whether on a perusal of the FIR,
treating the allegations to be correct, a criminal offence is prima facie
made out or not or whether there is any statutory bar vide Indian Oil
Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.7 (vide SCC para 12), State of Orissa v.
Saroj Kumar Sahoo8 (vide SCC Paras 9 and 10), etc. At this stage
the correctness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR has not to
be seen by the High Court, and that will be seen at the trial. It has to
be seen whether on a perusal of the FIR, a prima facie offence is
made our or not.
He also placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down
in Buddha Prakash Bouddha v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
6
(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 435 : (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 527 : 2008 SCC
OnLine SC 1245.
7
(2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188.
8
(2005) 13 SCC 540 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 272.
17 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
others9, wherein the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held as
under: (paragraph No.12)
“12.The Supreme Court has consistently held that at the stage of
considering a prayer for quashing of an FIR, the Court is required
only to examine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose
the commission of any cognizable offence. In State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal1, the Court laid down that quashment is justified only in
the rarest of rare cases where the allegations do not constitute any
offence or are absurd and inherently improbable. Similarly, in
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19
SCC 401, the Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
must refrain from conducting a roving enquiry into the truthfulness of
allegations or evaluating the sufficiency of evidence at the FIR stage.
The Court further observed that when the FIR discloses the
commission of cognizable offences, investigation should ordinarily
proceed unhindered.”
15. It is an admitted fact petitioner No.1/A.1 was
working as Sub Inspector of Police, Dhone Town police station
and petitioner No.2 /A.2 was working as a Constable in the said
police station. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent
No.2/complainant was working as a Head Constable in Dhone
Town Police Station from the year 2019, as an attached DO
(Duty Order), from Kowthalam Police Station to Dhone Town
9
2025 SCC OnLine MP 8877.
18 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
Police Station. A perusal of the material on record goes to show
that respondent No.2 / complainant was suspended by the
Superintendent of Police, Kurnool vide Order in PR
No.A6/11/2022, dated 10.03.2022, as disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against him on the allegation that the respondent
No.2 /complainant, being the Head Constable working in Dhone
Town UPS, was encouraging the illegal activities by sending
advance information of police raids to one Pilaka Ravi, who is a
Ganja Seller and Transporter, and one Katika Ramana, who is a
Matka Organizer, and used to pass on information to them
regarding police raids in advance, for pecuniary gains, due to
which, several times police raids went futile. Respondent
No.2/complainant was suspended on 10.03.2022. The alleged
incident is said to have occurred on 31.3.2022 and the present
complaint was lodged on 21.4.2022.
16. Respondent No.2/complainant was under the
impression that the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are behind his
suspension and on the information furnished by them only, the
Inspector of Police sent a report against him to the
Superintendent of Police. In the case on hand, the Inspector of
Police, upon conducting enquiry, submitted a report to the
19 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
Superintendent of Police, with regard to the aforesaid
allegations against respondent No.2/complainant.
17. According to learned counsel for respondent No.2/
complainant, the incident occurred in a broad daylight and
within public view and the listed witnesses viz. L.W.2-C.Prasad,
L.W.3-Ediga Jayamma and L.W.4-Boya Shankar witnessed the
incident. There cannot be any dispute that the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 was enacted with a laudable object to protect vulnerable
section of the society. The Legislature required ‘intention’ as an
essential ingredient for the offence of insult, intimidation and
humiliation of a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe in any place within ‘public view’. Looking at the aims and
objects of the Act, the expression ‘public view’ in Section 3 (1)
(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public
persons present should be independent and impartial and not
interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having
any kind of close relationship or association with the
complainant, would necessarily get excluded. In Daya
20 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
Bhatnagar v. State of Delhi10, the High Court of Delhi observed
that the expression within ‘public view’ occurring in Section 3
(1) (x) of the Act, 1989 means within the view which includes
hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of
the place / locality / village as distinct from few, who are not
private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the
complainant through any close relationship or any business,
commercial or any other vested interest, and who are not
participating members with him in any way. If such group of
people comprise anyone of these, it would not satisfy the
requirement of ‘public view’ within the meaning of the
expression used. In the case on hand, the alleged eyewitnesses,
as per the petitioners/A1 and A2, were having chequered
history, and admittedly, they are not residents of the place of
offence, and they are not strangers to both petitioners/A1 and
A2 and respondent No.2/complainant, as they got chequered
history and number of crimes were registered against them.
18. As per the statement of L.W.2-C.Prasad, on the date
of the incident, he was going to attend his work and when he
reached the scene of offence, he was alleged to have witnessed
10
2004 (109) DLT 915.
21 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
the incident. The statement of L.W.3-Ediga Jayamma goes to
show that on the date of the incident, she was going to her
relatives’ house situated near the scene of offence. With regard
to the same, the statement of L.W.4-Boya Shankar is that, on
the date of the incident, he went to near the house of
K.E.Jayanna and heard the shouting of petitioners/A1 and A2
and respondent No.2/complainant.
19. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that
L.W.2-C.Prasad, L.W.3-Ediga Jayamma and L.W.4-Boya
Shankar have got chequered history. Against L.W.2-C.Prasad,
three (03) crimes were registered, which include the offences
under Sections 420 read with 34 IPC and under the A.P.
Gaming Act. As against L.W.3-Ediga Jayamma, as many as six
(06) crimes were registered, which include the offences under
Sections 120B, 406, 420, read with 34 IPC; under the A.P.
Gaming Act and the A.P. Prohibition Act. As against L.W.4-
Boya Shankar, two (02) crimes were registered, which include
the offences under the A.P. Prohibition Act. Majority of the
crimes were registered in Dhone Town police station prior to the
incident in question. Presence of the said witnesses at the
scene of offence at the relevant point of time of the incident is
22 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
quite not probable and not trustworthy, as they are not
residents of the place of offence and got chequered history, and
they are not strangers to both petitioners/A1 and A2 and
respondent No.2/complainant.
20. Admittedly, an inquiry was conducted as against
respondent No.2/complainant by the Inspector of Police, Dhone
Town Police Station. This Court perused the report submitted
by the Inspector of Police. The report reveals that respondent
No.2/complainant was working as Head Constable of Dhone
Town Police Station from 25.09.2019 and he was posted to
Kouthalam Police Station and on attachment basis, he was
working at Dhone Town Police Station. It further reveals that
from the date of taking charge, respondent No.2/complainant
was not at all working properly and he was simply coming to
police station, going without doing any work in the police
station. The report further reveals that as and when police
made best efforts to catch hold of either Pilaka Ravi or Katika
Ramana, and conducted raids several times, the same failed as
illegal activists got advanced information about the raids. The
report further reveals that the Inspector of Police and his staff
conducted raid on Ganja seller and transporters and seized
23 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
23.03 kgs of Ganja from the possession of Pilaka Ravi, and later
he was sent to judicial custody. On verification of CDRs, it was
identified that respondent No.2/ complainant colluded with
Pilaka Ravi and Ramana and was passing on information to
them for pecuniary gains. A perusal of the material on record
further goes to show that when the police officials verified the
Call Details Records (CDR) of 2nd respondent/complainant, they
came to conclusion that 2nd respondent/complainant colluded
with one Pilaka Ravi and Katika Ramana and as and when
raids are likely to be conducted, the said information was
passed on, by 2nd respondent/ complainant to them. Further,
the CDR shows that 2nd respondent/ complainant and aforesaid
persons are frequently in touch with each other, and there were
as many as 46 calls during the period from 03.01.2022 to
09.02.2022 from his personal phone, and in respect of other
person i.e. Katika Ramana, it was found that 2nd respondent/
complainant made about 466 phone calls to him from
01.08.2021 to 31.01.2022, on that 2nd respondent/complainant
reprimanded his illegal activities with anti-social elements and
passing of information to them as and when raids were likely to
be conducted. In pursuance of the Report submitted by the
24 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool
suspended 2nd respondent /complainant. Indisputably, the
respondent No.2/ complainant was suspended on the ground of
initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as he being the Head
Constable working in Dhone Town UPS, encouraging the illegal
activities by sending advance information of police raids to anti-
social elements, and made the police raids futile.
21. The respondent No.2/complainant filed the present
complaint on 21.04.2022 alleging that on 31.03.2022 at about
9.20 a.m., while the respondent No.2/complainant was
proceeding on his personal work, it was alleged that the
petitioners/A1 and A2 abused him by touching his caste and
threatened him with dire consequences, and the alleged
incident was witnessed by the aforesaid witnesses. It is
pertinent to mention herein that when the alleged incident is
said to have taken place on 31.03.2022, the present complaint
was lodged on 21.04.2022 after a lapse of nearly 20 days. In
the complaint filed by respondent No.2/ complainant, the
reason that has been mentioned appears to be that the
respondent No.2/complainant is said to have given a written
complaint by Registered post on 02.04.2022 to the higher
25 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
authorities, but no action was taken thereon. It is not known as
to why respondent No.2/complainant himself, being a Police
Constable, opted to send a written complaint by Registered Post
to the higher authorities. Being a police person, the respondent
No.2 /complainant ought to have complained immediately to
show his bona fides.
22. Admittedly, the Order of suspension of respondent
No.2 / complainant was passed on 10.03.2022, and after a
lapse of 40 days, the present complaint came to be filed on the
ground of the alleged incident is said to have taken place on
31.03.2022. From the aforesaid circumstances, it can be
inferred that after due deliberations, the respondent No.2/
complainant appears to have foisted this false case against the
petitioners/A1 and A2 by arraying the aforesaid persons as
witnesses, who have chequered history. As discussed in the
earlier paragraphs, presence of the said persons who are having
chequered history, itself is improbable.
23. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sujoy Ghose v.
State of Jharkhand & another (2 supra), when an accused seeks
quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the
26 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous,
vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine the
manner with greater care. It will not be just enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/ complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
It is also held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many
other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the
case, over and above the averments, and if need be, with due
care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines.
It is further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the High Court need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation
/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the
course of investigation.
24. In the case on hand, the material on record reveals
that respondent No.2/complainant was in frequent touch with
Pilaka Ravi and Katika Ramana, who were indulging in illegal
27 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
activities like ganja transportation, matka, etc., and there were
as many as 46 calls during the period from 03.01.2022 to
09.02.2022 from the personal mobile of respondent
No.2/complainant to the mobile of Pilaka Ravi and there were
as many as 466 calls from the mobile of respondent No.2/
complainant to the other person Katika Ramana from
01.08.2021 to 31.01.2022. Respondent No.2/ complainant
was suspended in the light of the said allegations, pursuant to a
report sent by the Inspector of Police, which is based on his
enquiry and the information furnished by petitioners/A.1 and
A.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be
inferred that the present criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended against the petitioners/A1 and A2 with a mala fides
and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wrecking vengeance on the petitioners/A1 and A2 and with a
view to spite them due to private and personal grudge, on the
ground that petitioner No.1/A.1, who working as Sub Inspector
of Police, was responsible for giving information the illegal or
unlawful acts of respondent No.2/complainant, who was
working as a Head Constable, in the same police station like
passing of advance information about the raids to the offenders,
28 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
etc., to the Inspector of Police, who submitted a report to the
Superintendent of Police, which led to suspension of respondent
No.2. The said fact, coupled with inordinate delay in setting the
criminal law into motion by respondent No.2/complainant,
being a Head Constable, compels this Court to examine the
matter with greater care by looking into many other attending
circumstances which emerge from the record viz. the report
submitted by the Inspector of Police against respondent No.2/
complainant, and the chequered history of the witnesses i.e.
their involvement in several crimes, etc., with due care and
circumspection. After taking into the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation of the present criminal proceedings
against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 would lead to an irresistible
conclusion that the criminal proceedings are manifestly
frivolous, vexatious and malicious. The present case squarely
falls under Clause (7) of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajanlal and Ors (1 supra).
When such being the case, continuing the proceedings against
the petitioners/A1 and A2 is nothing but abuse of process of
law, and on that ground alone, this Court is inclined to quash
the impugned proceedings.
29 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023
25. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in SC/ST Sessions Case No.2 of 2023 pending on
the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989, Kurnool, against the petitioners/A1 and A2, are quashed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
17th July, 2026.
DNB/DRK
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
30 SRK, J
Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3174 OF 2023
17.7.2026
DNB/DRK
