PERUGU GOPINATH REDDY Vs. P SUSHMITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 2 to 6 in Crime No.65 of 2009 of Musheerabad police station, Hyderabad registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on a reference by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed the petition to quash the further proceedings against them therein.

(2.) The private complaint was filed by the 1st respondent herein alleging that the Women Police Station filed a charge sheet in C.C. No.390 of 2008 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code observing therein that it was suggested to the complainant to initiate legal action separately against the offences committed by the accused under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said investigating agency did not take action under the said Special Act and hence, the 1st respondent filed the complaint before the Court after Musheerabad police station refused to entertain her report in this regard.

(3.) The petitioners, while denying the factual allegations made against them in the complaint and claiming innocence of the offences alleged against them, further contended that the allegations in the private complaint which was registered as Crime No.350 of 2007 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad on a reference by the Court and the charge-sheet filed in C.C. No.390 of 2008 on completion of investigation into the said crime, are identical and the advice of the investigating officer to file another case is illegal, as it is his duty to register the case under appropriate sections of law and file a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.