THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5706 of 2013
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-A1, A2 and A4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.48 of 2013 on the file of Nawabpet Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST Act').
2. The 2nd respondent - complainant lodged a report before the Police on 30.04.2013 at 6.30 PM stating that keeping in view the earlier dispute that took place on 27.03.2013 during the Holy festival, on 29.04.2013 at about 6.00 PM while he was returning from the toddy shop after purchasing toddy for his father, A1 to A4 along with some others, who all belonged to higher caste, intercepted him on the way, abused him in filthy language and bet him with stones and sticks causing bleeding injuries. Basing on the said report, the above crime was registered for the above offences by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nawabpet Police Station.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no such incident occurred on 29.04.2013 as alleged by the complainant. There were no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners abused the complainant in the name of his caste. Contrary to the contents of the Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlP.No.5706 of 2013 complaint, the FIR was registered with an improvement to attract the provisions of SC & ST Act to harass the petitioners. There were no such allegations in the complaint or any witnesses were named to the alleged incident. The complaint was lodged on 30.04.2013 at 6.30 PM more than 24 hours after the alleged incident said to have taken place on 29.04.2013. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh1.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on merits.
6. Perused the record. On perusal of the complaint, it would not disclose that the petitioners abused the complainant in the name of his caste or to humiliate him due to his caste. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa case (supra) after referring to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in E. Krishnan Nayanar v. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan [1997 Cri.LJ 2036 (Ker), stated that:
"9.The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in any place but within public view", which means that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the person is not present.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that, in any event, the words were not attributed to the appellant. She merely accompanied her husband to that place even according to the allegation in the complaint and she did not utter offending words. According to appellant, in the facts and circumstances of this case, Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act is not attracted.
25. In a recent decision in M. Mohan v. The State 2011 (3) SCALE 78 this Court again had an occasion to consider the case of similar nature and this court held that if all the facts mentioned in the complaint are accepted as correct in its entirety and even then the complaint does not disclose the essential + ingredients of an offence, in such a case the High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions are quashed under its inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.1
2011 (11) SCC 259 Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlP.No.5706 of 2013
26. When we apply the ratio of the settled principles of law to the facts of this case, then, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the complaint qua the appellant only to prevent abuse of the process of law."
7. As the compliant would not disclose that the petitioners abused the complainant in the name of his caste or with an intention to humiliate him and as there was no mention of any witness to the incident and as the complaint only disclosed that the accused persons with an intention to beat him, came and abused him and caused injuries to him, it would attract the ingredients of Section 324 read with 34 IPC only. Registering the case for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act, is considered as an abuse of process of law.
8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings in FIR No.48 of 2013 of Nawabpet Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioners - A1, A2 and A4 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 only, and dismissing the petition for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. The concerned Police are permitted to proceed with the investigation against the petitioners for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC in the above crime.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J December 01, 2021 KTL