(1.) With the consent of all the parties, the Writ Petition itself has been taken up for disposal. All the learned counsel argued for disposal of the writ petition itself.
(2.) The prayer in the writ petition is as follows-
(3.) Sri A.Tulsi Raj Gokul, learned counsel for the petitioner has commenced the arguments. It is his contention that the application under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.153 of 2019 of Kurnool II Town Police Station, which was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC, 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of SC, ST POA Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is a fit case to quash the FIR, since according to him no case is virtually made out, particularly under the provisions of SC, ST POA Act, and that a preliminary inquiry as mandated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra and Another has not been carried out. It is his essential contention that before registering the case under the provisions of SC, ST POA Act a preliminary inquiry should be conducted. He also states that the offences could not have actually occurred as mentioned in the FIR, because of the prevalent Covid pandemic and the imposition of Section 144 Cr.P.C. in that area. It is his contention that as there is an express prohibition of the movement of people and the police themselves were enforcing the said prohibition, the occurrence of the offence as stated in the report is highly improbable. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the police had a duty to conduct an inquiry about the very occurrence of the event before registering the FIR. He also points out that the CCTV cameras, which were installed, had also recorded activities in the street and that the recording of the same would show that the offence did not occur at that time and in that area at all. He states that the FIR is lodged maliciously and is a clear abuse of provisions of law.