KALUVA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners/A1 to A6 supplicate to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.81 of 2019 of Nandalur Police Station, YSR Kadapa district.

(2.) The de-facto complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur and the same is forwarded to the Nandalur Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation which was registered as Crime No.81 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 448 & 506 r/w 34 IPC, 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and investigated into. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a car driver and during the recent Assembly elections he canvassed for the Y.S.R. Congress Party candidate Sri Meda Mallikarjuna Reddy and he won the election. While the villagers celebrating the success, A1, who is an accused in some other cases, abused him in the name of his caste and tried to beat him. At the intervention of Gangadhar and Nagaiah of Harijanawada, A1 went away. On 27.05.2019 at 6.00 P.M. while the complainant was standing outside his house, A1 to A6 went there and scolded him in the name of his caste and threatened him and attacked him with iron rods. At that time the villagers Gangadhar, Nagaiah, Nagesh and some others of Harijanawada resisted the accused, the complainant ran inside his house and locked the doors. The accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences and went away.

(3.) Denying the F.I.R. allegations as false and motivated to implicate the accused due to political rivalry, learned counsel for the petitioners sought for quashing the F.I.R. mainly on two technical grounds; firstly, he would argue that the learned Magistrate has forwarded the complaint to the Police mechanically without applying judicial mind and recording the reasons. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that the learned Magistrate is required to apply his mind to the facts of the complaint and record the reasons which prompted him to forward the complaint to the Police. The mechanical forwarding of the complaint to the Police for registration of the F.I.R, learned counsel argued, would deprive the accused an opportunity to effectively challenge the order in higher Forum for want of reasons. He relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, 2013 10 SCC 705, and also the decisions of this Court in S. Purnachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 LawSuit(Hyd) 87, Anne Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 LawSuit(Hyd) 578 to contend that the Magistrate has to record reasons while forwarding complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.