APHC010111262023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1742/2023 Between: 1. KOLLU NARASIMHA RAO, S/O GANGACHP.LAM, AGE 35YEARS, CASTE AGNIKULAKSHATRIYA, R/O. D.NO.6-117, MORIPALEM, H/O ADURRU(V), MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 2. KOLLU SATYANARAYANA, S/O GANGACHALAM, AGED 39 YEARS, CASTE AGNIKULAKSHATRIYA, R/O. D.NO.6-117, MORIPALEM, H/O ADURRU(V), MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 3. MALLADI NARESH @ RAMESH, , S/O. YEDUKONDALU, AGED 26YEARS, CASTE AGNIKULAKSHATRY, D.NO. 1-241, VASALATIPPA H/O T. CHALLAPALLI VILLAGE, UPPALAGUPTAM MANDAL. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. 4. KOLLU MAREMMA, W/O GANGACHALAM, AGED 65 YEARS, CASTE AGNIKULAKSHATRIYA, R/O. D.NO.6-117, MORIPALEM, H/O ADURRU(V), MAMIDIKUDURU MANDAL,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (S.H.O. NAGARAM POLICE STATION KONASEEMA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2. REKHADI GOWRI, W/O SRINU, ABOUT 38 YEARS, MARIPALEM, ADHURU VILLAGE, MAMMIDIKUDHURU MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 2 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 Court may be pleased to quash the S.C.No.178/2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of X Addl. District and Sessions Judge (For The Trail of SC and St (POA) Act Cases), Rajamahendravaram, against the petitioners /Accused No.1 to 4 and to pass 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 to dispense with the certified copy as well as Xerox copy is filed of S.C.No.78 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of X Addl. District & Sessions Judge (For The Trail of SC and ST (POA) Act Cases), Rajamahendravaram, in filing of the criminal petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/ Accused No.1 to 4 in S.C.No.178/2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Court of X Addl. District & Sessions Judge (for The Trail of SC & ST (POA) Act Cases), Rajamahendravaram, pending the criminal petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K.S.G. PADMAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. GANGA KUMAR CHAKRAVARTULA 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Heard Smt.K.S.G.Padmavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Neelothpal, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State/respondent No.1, and Sri Ganga Kumar Chakravartula, learned counsel for the de facto complainant/respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.K.S.G.Padmavathi, would submit that the complaint which is lodged on 01.08.2022, was registered as Crime No.128 of 2022 on the file of Nagaram Police Station, Konaseema District, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 354, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. 3. Learned counsel, Smt.K.S.G.Padmavathi, would further submit that the charge sheet, which is filed pursuant to the investigation, and transformed into S.C.No.178 of 2022 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge (for the trial of SC & ST (POA) Act cases), Rajamahendravaram. She would also submit that, on 31.07.2022, at about 11:00 hours, LWs.1 and 2 got admitted in the Community Health Centre, Razole, where LW.1 gave a statement alleging that Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are residents of her village, trespassed into her site, abused her in the name of her caste and insulted her within public view, beat her with hands and kicked her with legs, pulled her saree, sat on her abdomen and thus outraged her modesty, in view of the boundary disputes between her and her husband on one hand and the accused on the other. Basing on the said complaint, the charge sheet was filed, as stated supra. 4. The Investigating Officer, in the charge sheet, stated that, after thorough investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The investigation disclosed that LW.1, Rekhadi Gowri, a Scheduled Caste woman hailing from Navagam Village, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District, had married LW.2, Rekhadi Sreenu, who belongs to Agnikula Kshatriya by caste, out of love. During the course of the investigation, the statements of the other witnesses cited in the 4 charge sheet were also recorded. The charge sheet would further indicate that there are boundary disputes between LWs.1 to 4 on one hand and Accused Nos.1 to 4 on the other. Despite the intervention of the elders, the said dispute remained unresolved. 5. The charge sheet further states that Accused Nos.1 to 4 criminally trespassed into the site of LWs.1 and 2, removed the plastic fence tied to two casurina sticks and affixed at the boundary of the site by investing an amount of Rs.500/- and destroyed. Among the witnesses, LW.2 accosted them as to why they trespassed into the site and removed the cloth fence. However, they stated that the site belongs to them and asked LW.1 why he had come to the site. Though LW.1 asked the accused to vacate the site, Accused No.4, Kollu Maramma, allegedly cut away the hibiscus plant therein and also the rope tied to the coconut tree. In that pursuit, Accused No.2, Kollu Satyanarayana and Accused No.3, Malladi Ramesh beat LWs.1 and 2 with hands, abused LW.1 by uttering her caste name in filthy language, and thereafter pushed LWs.1 to 3 on to the road and the neighbours came there and rescued LWs.1 to 3. In that instance, LW.1 sustained grazed injuries on her both wrists, and LW.2 suffered minor injuries. 6. Learned counsel, Smt.K.S.G.Padmavathi, would submit that the very core allegation in the complaint is that there is a boundary dispute between the de facto complainant and the Accused Nos.1 to 4. She would further submit that the statements of the witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer. In that pursuit, the statement of LW.10, Katta Srinubabu S/o Venkateswara Rao was also recorded, which reads as follows: "I belong to Gudapalli village of Malikipuram mandal. I have been working in the Tahsildar office of Mangodikuduru mandal for the past 5 years as Licensed Surveyor of Government Agency. About 3 months ago, when Kollu Maremma of Adurru village of Mori farm in Mamidikuduru mandal asked me for a boundary survey, I went and measured the boundaries and showed them. According to the registration documents, Kollu Maremma garu had 5 cents of land, Rekadi Srinu garu had 4 cents of land, and Chinta Srinu garu had 4½ cents of land. But when the entire land was measured, there 5 was a little more land, i.e. about 1.5 cents of land, so it was divided equally among the three. Kollu Maremma garu got 5.320 cents, Rekadi Srinu garu got 4.450 cents, and Chinta Srinu garu got 4.864 cents of land and I showed the boundaries. The Kollu Maremma family members had planted sticks on their boundaries. Since the said boundaries came into Rekadi Srinu's place, he did not agree, so I surveyed it as per the documents. I informed them to discuss the boundaries issue with the elders and then come back to me and I will survey it and finalize it, and then I left. When the DSP asked for the copy of Rough Survey Report, I showed him the same. Today, when the DSP of Amalapuram came and asked me, I told him the above incident." 7. In the said statement, it is emphatically stated by LW.10 that, after completion of the survey, he submitted the report to the concerned authorities, fortifying that an extent of 5.320 cents of land belongs to Kollu Maremma (Accused No.4), an extent of 4.450 cents belongs to Rekhadi Srinu (husband of de facto complainant), and an extent of 4.864 cents belongs Chinta Sreenu. 8. As stated by the surveyor, admittedly there is a civil dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant and none of the parties filed any civil suit before the competent civil Court, and the fact remains that the dispute is ongoing, despite the intervention of elders. 9. The other important aspect brought to the notice of this Court by Smt.K.S.G.Padmavathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that, as per the averments made in the complaint, the de facto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and hails from Navagam Village. However, the caste certificate issued by LW.16 shows that the de facto complainant belongs to BC-A community. As seen from the charge sheet, the penultimate paragraph reads as follows: "As per the evidence collected during the course of investigation it is established that A-1 to A-4 who belong to Agnikulakshatiry (B.C-A) caste, knowingly well that L.Ws 1 & 2 belong to Mala which is scheduled caste criminally trespassed into their site, destroyed the plastic fence arranged by L.W-2 at the boundary by investing an amount of Rs.500/- and also cut away flower plants, beat them with hands and insulted them with in public view." 6 10. To this, Smt.K.S.G.Padmavathi, learned counsel, would draw the attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Tahsildar (LW.16) on 20.11.2018, which is nomenclatured as "COMMUNITY, NATIVITY & DATE OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE", which reveals that the de facto complainant belongs to BC-A community, and the same has to be taken note of. She would further submit that the very institution of case under SC & ST (POA) Act does not hold water, since the alleged person does not belong to Scheduled Caste community. The Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet, did not conduct the investigation in a proper manner and that the investigation was done in a routine and mechanical manner. Thereafter, the report is submitted, pursuant to which the case was numbered as S.C.No.178 of 2022 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge (for the trial of SC & ST (POA) Act cases), Rajamahendravaram. 11. After hearing both the learned counsel and considering the submissions made, it is necessary to look into the provisions of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 3(1)(r) thereof reads as follows: "(1)(r): intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view." 12. The very essence of the said provision is not at all attracted in the present case. It is not known as to how the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation without looking into the certificate issued by the competent authority. This Court also does not find any mentioning as to whether the Investigation Officer had conducted any enquiry as to the caste of the de facto complainant in support of the allegations made in the charge sheet. The very investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer appears to be contrary to the very provisions of the SC & ST (POA) Act, and without going into the provisions, the said charge sheet is filed. 7 13. It is also needless to state that the law is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters to be considered while examining the contents of a complaint and the circumstances under which further proceedings can be permitted to continue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 102 of the said judgment, enumerated seven illustrative categories warranting the exercise of such jurisdiction, which are as follows: “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 FIR 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 com-plaint 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 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 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. (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 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 14. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for the reasons aforestated, the proceedings in S.C.No.178 of 2022 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge (for the Trial of SC & ST (POA) Act cases), Rajamahendravaram, are hereby quashed. 15. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition No.1742 of 2023 is allowed. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 20-07-2026 BMS