APHC010214182022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3277/2022 Between: 1. DASARI SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50YRS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.2-2, AGIRIPALLI VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. DASARI VINOD, S/O SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 30YRS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.2-2, AGIRIPALLI VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT 2. KAMBALA PRADEEP, S/O MUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29YRS, R/O KOTHAPETA, AGIRIPALLI VILLAGE, POST AND MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.164 of 2022 of Agiripalli 2 Police Station, Krishna District, for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. 2. Heard Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, it is a case of case and counter case. Learned counsel would further submit that, based on the complaint given by the Petitioners herein, a case in Crime No.163 of 2022 was registered against Respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. Likewise, based on the statement of Respondent No.2 which was recorded by the Police at the hospital, the present case was registered against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that, being a member of SC caste, Respondent No.2 buried his father in Christian graveyard. Learned counsel would finally submit that, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners for the offence under SCST Act is not tenable under law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the contentions raised by the Petitioners are the matter of trial and the investigation is in progress. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the Police may be directed to 3 conclude the investigation to find out the truth in the statement of Respondent No.2. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the petition may be disposed of by giving protection to the Petitioners vide guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar1. 6. Considering the submissions, this criminal petition is disposed of with the following; a. Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible and final a report, in accordance with law. b. In the event of any coercive action sought to be taken against the Petitioners, concerned police authorities are directed to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra). c. It goes without saying that, if any charge sheet is filed in the above crime, the Petitioners are at liberty to challenge the charge sheet, if they feel aggrieved by the same. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:24.01.2025 Dinesh 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3277 of 2022 Dt.24.01.2025 Dinesh