logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1417 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 5799 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Parties : Kakaral Ramesh Versus State SHO of Railway Kodur PS, rep. by itsPublic Prosecutor, High Court of AP Amaravati & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 04-08-2026
Head Note :-
SCSI POA Act - Sec. 3(1 )(r), 3(1 )(s) 3(2)(va) -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: 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 quash the complaint in Crime No. 158/2026 of Railway Kodur PS, Tirupati District dt.07-07-2026 for an offfence alleged under sec. 115(2), 324(2), 351(2) BNS and Sec. 3(1 )(r), 3(1 )(s) 3(2)(va) of SCSI POA Act and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 leased to dispense with the certified copies of the FIR and complaint in Crime No.158/2026 of Railway Kodur PS, Tirupati District as the petitoner herein filed the xerox copies of the same for kind perusal by this Hon’ble Court and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

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 the arrest of the petitioner herein /accused relating to the Crime No. 158/2026 of Railway Kodur PS, Tirupati District for an offence under sec. 115(2), 324(2), 351(2) BNS and Sec. 3(1 )(r), 3(1 )(s) 3(2)(va) of SCST POA Act pending disposal of the quash petition and pass)

1. Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein (Accused), seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.158 of 2026 of Railway Kodur UPS Police Station, Tirupathi District, for the offence punishable under Section 115(2), 324(2) & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Order dated 21.07.2026, he has taken notice on respondent No.2 and filed a memo of proof of service to that effect.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that he has taken notice to respondent No.2.

4. Despite service of notice, none represented respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment of less than seven (07) years and more so, in view of the well settled law, Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, is applicable to the offence U/s.3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 also. Substantiating the same, he relied on the Order dated 25.10.2017 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad in Rajulapati Ankababu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.P.No.7468 of 2011 dated 25.10.2017) and the Order of this Court dated 01.05.2024 in Crl.P.No.2416 of 2024 in Kandala Penchalaiah and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did not oppose the same and concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years.

7. Heard. Perused the entire available material on record.

8. In this context, it is appropriate to note the dictum held in Rajulapati Ankababu’s case, wherein the Common High Court at Hyderabad, dealt with the identical issue. For comprehensive view, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

                  “31. The core issue which falls for consideration at this juncture is whether the Investigating Officer has to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., while conducting investigation in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

                  32. The SC/ST Act came into force with effect from 30.1.1990. Section 41A of Cr.P.C., was introduced in the year 2010. The Parliament was very much aware of the provisions of the SC/ST Act at the time of introducing Section 41A of Cr.P.C., in the year 2010. Had it been the intention of the Parliament to exclude the application of Section 41A of Cr.P.C., in respect of the offences committed under the SC/ST Act, the same might have been reflected in the Cr.P.C. There is no specific provision under the SC/ST Act, excluding the application of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. The Parliament amended the provisions of the SC/ST Act, by way of Amendment Act 1 of 2016 by introducing certain provisions. The Parliament is very much aware of existence of Section 41A of Cr.P.C., at the time of making suitable amendments to the SC/ST Act. It is a settled principle of law that the provisions of Cr.P.C., are applicable to the Special Acts so far as the investigation, inquiry and trial are concerned, unless there is specific provisions under the Special Act. Even under the amended Act, there is no provision which specifically excludes the application of Section 41A of Cr.P.C., in respect of offences committed under the SC/ST Act.

                  33. Having regard to various provisions of the Cr.P.C., and the SC/ST Act referred supra, and the principle enunciated in Arnesh Kumar, I am of the considered view that Section 41A Cr.P.C., in letter and spirit, is applicable to the offences committed under the SC/ST Act if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend upto seven years, whether with or without fine.”

8. Since the offences alleged FIR in Crime No.158 of 2026 of Railway Kodur UPS Police Station, Tirupathi District are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and in view of the no objection expressed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, coupled with the well-settled legal principles held in Rajulapati Ankababu‘s case, this Court directs the respondent/police to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 41A Cr.P.C., scrupulously as per the guidelines enunciated in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another ((2014) 8 SCC 273), which was reiterated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satendar Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 162) in FIR in Crime No.158 of 2026 of Railway Kodur UPS Police Station, Tirupathi District.

9. If it is noticed in the course of investigation that the petitioner has committed any offence which is punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, the investigating officer is at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal