IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 19715 of 2008 Between: Alluri Atchyuta Rama Raju @ Gandhi Raju, S/o. Late Somaraju, R/o. Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District Machilipatnam. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Krishna District Machilipatnam. 3 Station House Officer, Bantumilli Police Station, Bantumilli, Krishna District. 4 The Circle Inspector of Police, Bandar (Rural) Machilipatnam. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in registering the case in Cr.no. 7/2005 for the oﬀences mentioned therein as illegal, arbitrary and one without jurisdiction and quash the same in so far against the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO: 19715 of 2008 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent in registering Cr.No.7 of 2005 as arbitrary and illegal. The case of the petitioner is that on a complaint ﬁled by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, the 3 rd respondent herein registered Cr.No.7 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Bantumalli P.S. Krishna District for the oﬀence punishable under Sections.447, 468, 471 read with 114 IPC and Sec.3(1)(iv)(v) of S.C and S.T(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and Section.7 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 against the petitioner as well as two others, namely 1) Bolla Ravindranath Tagore and 2) Bolla Veera Kanaka Radhakrishna. Challenging the said action of the 3rd respondent, the two other accused filed W.P.No.8289 of 2005. This Court after hearing both the parties allowed the said writ petition thereby quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.7 of 2005 holding as under: “As seen from the recitals of the above complaint, absolutely there is no such averment that the land said to have been occupied by the petitioners is the Government land and that the said land was assigned to the members of the Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe and that they were wrongfully dispossessed. Apart from that, the above recitals do not constitute any oﬀences under Sections 466, 468 and 471 IPC and even as seen from the list enclosed regarding assignment of lands, it is not known whether the assignees are the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and in the absence of such a material, it cannot be said that the said land was assigned in favour of the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, or AP Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer Act, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. Therefore, it can easily be inferred that no case is made out to register the crime in question against the petitioners.” The fact that the petitioner herein who is also arrayed as an accused in Cr.No.7 of 2005 is also similarly situated has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. In the circumstances following the order in W.P.No.8289 of 2005, the registration of FIR is quashed so far as the petitioner herein is concerned and accordingly the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _________ G.ROHINI,J 19th September,2008 *TSNR