APHC010351082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI V ' a: TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7278 OF 2025 > 9! Between: Marreddi Ayyapa Reddy, S/o. Sree Ramaireddy Aged About 44 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Chinaparimi Village, Tsunduru Mandal, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent 2. Bhavani Shankar Potiuri, S/o. Nageshwara Rao, Aged about 19 Occ. Student, R/o. Alapadu Village, Tsunduru Mandal, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh. years ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records of pertains SPL. SC. 57/S of 2025 on the file of Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge for Trail of SC < r. & ST (POA) cases cum IV Additional District & Session Judge, Guntur and quash the Criminal proceedings. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance in SPL.SC. 57/S of 2025 on the file of Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge for Trail of SC &ST (POA) cases cum IV Additional District & Session Judge, Guntur. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. MALLIKHARJUNA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: // APHC010351082025 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7278/2025 [3396] Between: MARREDDI AYYAPA REDDY, S/0. SREE RAMAIREDDY ABOUT 44 YEARS,OCC- AGRICULTURE VILLAGE, TSUNDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AGED R/0. CHINAPARIMI AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2.BHAVANI SHANKAR POTIURl, S/0. NAGESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC- STUDENT, R/0. ALAPADU VILLAGE, TSUNDURU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. .RESPONDENT/COMPLAIN ANT(S): Counsel for the Petitiondr/accused 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respo»ndent/comp!ainant(S): . 1.PMALLIKHARJUNARAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: t The instant Criminal Petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking jtp quash the proceedings against him in Spl.S.C.No.57/S of 2025 on the file gf the Court of Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs (PoA) cases-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur for the offences under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) of BNS and Section 3(1 )(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. 2 fe ■' Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the alleged incident said to have taken place on 11.12.2024, whereas, the crime has been registered 22.12.2024 and there is abnormal delay in reporting the matter to the Police. Learned counsel would further submit that, even according to the Complainant, he had come to his grandfather’s place. The knowledge of the Petitioner about the caste of the Complainant is highly improbable. Learned counsel would submit that the alleged incident has not occurred, within the public view and hence, the question of attracting the offence under SCSI (PoA) Act, does not arise. Learned counsel finally submits that continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. 3. Sri P.Mallikharjuna Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are allegations raised against the Petitioner and specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner. It is submitted that there is a delay in giving report to the Police because the elders intervened and tried to settle the issue. As Respondent No.2 could not get justice, he lodged the case. Learned counsel further submits that whateverthe contentions raised in the present petition, are the matter of defence. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial by deciding the truth or otherwise on the factual aspects. It is submitted that, after due investigation, Police filed charge sheet in this matter 2. and the Court has taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the Learned counsel finally prays for Petitioner, who is the sole Accused. dismissal of the petition. 3 Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is verifiable material against the Petitioner and prima facie case is there against the Petitioner. Since charge sheet is also filed and the Court has taken cognizance of the offences, prays fOftdismissal of the petition. A bare perusal of the complamt would reveal that on 11.12.2024 at about 07.00 a.m., while RespondentrNo.2 was returning home from China Parimi, Petitioner/Accused stopped and abused him in the name of his caste and twisted his left hand and throttled his neck and also beat with hand on his right jaw. A keen perusal of the complaint and the material placed on record would disclose that specific abusive words were alleged to have been used by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2 touching his caste and he also beat him with hands. 4. 5. 6. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others\ a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- "57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the casemF Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in ^Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; Hi) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing 0ould be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which hds been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); an 1 2021 see OnLine Se 315 4 v) While examining an FIR/complaint, : quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred fprn usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in Mo specific spheres of The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and me. judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers 'of the Couit do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not ari encyclopedia v/hich must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the Investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based . hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process ofjdw. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that therm is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 CnFM is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lai (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. activities on (emphasis supplied) In view of the above discussion and the judgment referred to supra, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are the aspects to be decided during trial. As there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioner^ this is not a proper stage to consider 7. / ■ 5 the genuineness of the said allegations. A petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be decided based on presumptions and assumptions. This Court cannot rely on the merits of the case at this stage, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court cannot conduct a mini trial and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is.dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 8. \ Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trail of SC & ST (POA) cases cum IV Additional District & Session Judge, Guntur. One CC to SRI. DASARI S VV S V PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. P. MALLIKHARJUNA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] CCS to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. [OUT] Two CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. Chp nm 4- HIGH COURT DATED:22/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7278 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ) i I !) f )