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

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

FRIDAY, THE 17

th

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 WORKIN G

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/COMPLAINAN T(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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

2

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:

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

3

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

2

nd 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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

4

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 ‘�వ్వెందిరా

మమ్ముల� అడిగేదిరా, ఏరుకుల నా కొడకా, � బ్రతుకెంతరా, మీకే బ్రమోషన్స్ వచ్చేది

కదరా, మేమే వ్�కకుపోతునాామ్మ కదరా’, so saying the accused Nos.1 and

2 were alleged to have threatened the respondent No.2

/complainant with dire consequences; that L.W 2/Ediga

Jayamma, L.W3/C hakali Prasad and L.W4/B oya Shankar

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

5

witnessed the incident and when the same was questioned,

accused Nos.1 and 2 were alleged to have uttered as ‘ఈ ఎరుకలి నా

కొడుకుది ఎకుువెంది’ 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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

6

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 2

nd

respondent /complainant and came to conclusion that 2

nd

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 2

nd

respondent/complainant to them.

According to learned counsel, the CDR shows that 2

nd

respondent/complainant and aforesaid persons are frequently

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

7

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 2

nd respondent/complainant made about 466 phone calls

to him from 01.08.2021 to 31.01.2022, on that 2

nd 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 2

nd respondent

/complainant, a disciplinary action was initiated again st

respondent No.2/complainant, and in pursuance of the Report

submitted by the Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of

Police, Kurnool suspended 2

nd respondent vide Order dated

10.03.2022.

6. The learned counsel further contended that 2

nd

respondent was under the impression that he was suspended at

the behest of 1

st 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. 2

nd respondent /complainant

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

8

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, 2

nd 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,

2

nd respondent made this false complaint, only with a view to

1

AIR 1992 SC 604.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

9

wreck vengeance against the petitioners/A1 and A2, filed the

complaint after lapse of 20 days.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2

nd

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, 2

nd respondent/complainant made a complaint before

police, and when the police refused to accept the same, 2

nd

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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

10

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, t he allegation is that on

31.03.2022 at about 9.20 a.m., while the respondent No.2 /

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

11

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 2

nd 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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

12

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 the m,

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 another

2, 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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

13

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 accused

3

.

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 investigation

4

.

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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

14

He also placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down

in Mohd. Wajid and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh

5, 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 Lal

1.

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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

15

(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, l earned 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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

16

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

another

6, 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 Sahoo

8

(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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

17

others

9, 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 Lal

1

, 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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

18

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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

19

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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

20

Bhatnagar v. State of Delhi

10, 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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

21

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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

22

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 attachm ent 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 poli ce

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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

23

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 2

nd respondent/complainant, they

came to conclusion that 2

nd 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 2

nd respondent/ complainant to them. Further,

the CDR shows that 2

nd 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 2

nd respondent/

complainant made about 466 phone calls to him from

01.08.2021 to 31.01.2022, on that 2

nd 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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

24

Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool

suspended 2

nd 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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

25

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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

26

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

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

27

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 Ram ana 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,

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

28

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.

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

29

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

17

th

July, 2026.

DNB/DRK

Whether the order is :

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

SRK, J

Crl.P.No.3174 of 2023

30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3174 OF 2023

17.7.2026

DNB/DRK