APHC010147382022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: Uppala Mahalakshmi, and Others State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. G SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. P V N KIRAN KUMAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 48 Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused 3 and 4 seeking to quash the case in Spl.SC.No.8 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2484/2022 Uppala Mahalakshmi, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): KIRAN KUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of 1973 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused 3 to quash the case in Spl.SC.No.8 of 2022 on the file of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) of the Code of 1973 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused 3 of 2022 on the file of 2 theX Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Spl. Sessions Judge (SC/ST Cases), Krishna District. 2. Heard Sri G. Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioners,Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi,learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1,2 and Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the accused No.3 and 4, who have nothing to do with the present case and there is clear ambiguity in the statement of the defacto complainant, which was recorded by the Police, to the contents of the private complaint which was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.Learned counsel would further submit that the alleged date of offence is on 20.03.2019, whereas the case has been lodged with huge delay i.e., on 27.07.2021. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that this complaint was filed before the jurisdictional Court,which was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 basing on which, the Police have registered the case against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420,323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and 3(1) (r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015[for short referred as SC ST (POA) Act]. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that after the amendments in SC ST (POA) Act, the Sessions Court i.e., the Special Court can take cognizance directly, without there being any committal. But in the present case, there is violation of such procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally submits that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the argument regarding delay of taking cognizance by the Magistrate Court and then Committal of the case to the Special Court, are not the matters to be appreciated by this Court while entertaining the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The contentions raised in the present petition are all the matter of trial. When it is the case of disputed questions of facts placed before this Court, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 8. Considering the submissions made and upon a clear look at the contents of the complaint and other material placed on record, would show prima facie allegations made against the petitioners, which require 4 investigation at the full length of trial. It is left open to the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court in their defence, learned Trial Judge may appreciate them according to law and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the presence of the petitioners/Accused No.3 and 4 before the Trial Court is dispensed with unless their presence is specifically directed by the Trial Court. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Dt.03.01.2025 Pnr 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2484 of 2022 Dated 03.01.2025 Pnr