KASI REDDY SIDDAMMAGARI HARINATH REDDY Vs. AVULA DANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is A3 of S.C.No.43 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, and belongs to non-Scheduled Caste. The 1st respondent herein is A1 and belongs to Scheduled Caste(for short S.C.) and the 2nd respondent herein is the de facto complainant of Crime No.85 of 2008 of Rajupalem Police Station, Kadapa District. The Police, under the provisions of the Act, after investigation filed the final report and the learned Magistrate from the protest raised by the de facto complainant of the referred report filed by the police with notice to the de facto complainant, on the protest by following the procedure contemplated by Sections 200 to 204 r/w 190 and 209 Cr.P.C. taken cognizance including for the offence under Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for short the Act) in committing the case to the Special Court and the Special Court pursuant to that allotted Sessions Case number and the same is pending.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.3 and learned counsel for respondent No.2/A1, who also supported the contentions in the transfer petition and respondent No.1/de facto complainant did not choose to appear and perused the material on record.

(3.) The order of the learned committal Magistrate in committing the case as provided under the provisions of the Special Act was challenged by A1 and A3(since A2) died before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, which is the Special Court for trial of the offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989, was challenged by filing Crl.M.P.No.295 of 2017, though provision of law mistakenly mentioned as if under Section 181 Cr.P.C. that did not gain importance rightly, as mere wrong quoting of provision of law, no way fatal. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition questioning the application of the provisions of the Act to continue the case before the Special Court with observations particularly at para-9, which reads as follows: