HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8586 OF 2021 AND 2317 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Criminal Petition No.8586 of 2021 and Mr.K.Srikanth,
learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent and learned Public
Prosecutor in Criminal Petition No.2317 of 2022.
2. Criminal Petition No.8586 of 2021 is filed to quash the proceedings in Spl. Sessions Case No.61 of 2021 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Secunderabad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2. The offences leveled against the petitioners herein are under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Criminal Amendment Act 2015) (for short 'the Act').
3. Likewise, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2317 of 2022 is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.9751 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2nd respondent herein is the accused No.1 in Crl.P.No. 8586 of 2021. The offences leveled against the 2nd respondent are under Sections 2 341, 323, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In Criminal Petition No.2317 of 2022, the petitioner/de facto complainant is seeking to withdraw CC No.9751 of 2021, from the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and transfer the same to the VI Metropolitan Sessions Court, Secunderabad for trial along with Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021.
4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners in Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021 are as follows :
On 01.11.2020 at about 17.20 hours the 2nd respondent called one Krishnakanth and requested for some money as he was in need of money. As Krishnakanth asked him to come to his home and collect money from him, L.W.1 i.e. 2nd respondent herein, went there by 17:24 hours. By the time he reached there, the said Krishnakanth and petitioner No.1 were quarrelling over their previous enmity. At that time, Krishnakanth received a phone call from Prem, which was handed over to the complainant to continue further, who happened to speak to Prem in Lambadi language. After that when he tried to enquire about the quarrel, A.1 and A.2 who had made out from his dialect that he belongs to ST Lambada community, they caught hold 3 his collar and abused by referring his caste name as "Neekenduku raa Lambadi Lanja Kodaka" and also threatened him with dire consequences. They have also taken his photographs and threatened that they will kill and beat him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P. No. 8586 of 2021 submits that as per the contents of the complaint, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC it is clear that there was no intention of the petitioners herein to insult the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant. There was no public view. The contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein and the complaint is an abuse of process. On the complaint lodged by the 1st petitioner herein, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS-OU, Hyderabad has registered a case in Cr.No. 329 of 2020 on 01.11.2020 against the 2nd respondent, and the said Krishnakanth and 2 others for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer has laid charge sheet against them. The same was taken on file vide CC No. 9751 of 2021. The said facts would reveal that there are disputes between the Krishnakanth and 1st 4 petitioner herein. He has also placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .
6. On the other hand, Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. They have abused the 2nd respondent by referring his caste name and insulted him. The defences taken by the petitioners cannot be considered under Section 482 of Cr.PC.
7. As stated supra, on the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent, Police, Osmania University, Hyderabad registered a case in Cr.No. 329 of 2020 against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer has laid down charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of the second respondent as L.W.1 Kondagadapa Krishnakath, statement of Kadari Suresh as respondent No.2 and Rupavath Mahesh as L.W.3. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, the second respondent has narrated all the facts in the complaint. According to him, the petitioner herein and one Krishnakanth attacked on him, caught hold of his collar and assaulted him. They have also abused him. He has 5 not mentioned the presence of 2nd petitioner herein. It is also relevant to note that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, L.W.3 Kadari Suresh, has also not referred the presence of the 2nd petitioner herein. Further, he has stated that there was quarrel between 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. After five or ten months, he left the place. Thereafter, they have informed the same to the police. Thus, the statements of 2nd respondent (L.W.1), L.W.2 and L.W.3 are contradictory. The role played by the 2nd petitioner is not mentioned by the L.W.2 and L.W.3. It is also relevant that L.W.2 and L.W.3 have not even mentioned the presence of L.W.3.
8. It is also relevant to note that the contents of statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC and also contents of charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act.
9. As per Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, the punishments for offences of Atrocities :- Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view ;6
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view ;
10. The statements of the said witnesses and also contents of the charge sheet would reveal that there is no public view. There is no intention or intimidation to insult the 2nd respondent. As stated supra, at the cost of repetition, L.W.2 and L.W.3 did not even state about the presence of 2nd petitioner, wife of 1st petitioner. They have only stated about the quarrel between the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. In view of the said discussion, the proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021, pending on the file of VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court, Secunderabad against 2nd petitioner are quashed in toto. The said proceedings are quashed against the 1st petitioner insofar as Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act are quashed. However, the contents of complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC would reveal that there was quarrel between 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent and according to them, the 1st petitioner used criminal force, pushed the 2nd respondent which prima facie constitute the offence under Section 506 IPC. Therefore, the proceedings may 7 come under the offence under Section 506 IPC against the 1st petitioner herein only.
11. In view of the above said discussion, the Criminal Petition No. 8586 of 2021 is allowed in part quashing the proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021 against the 2nd petitioner in toto and quashed the said proceedings against the 1st petitioner insofar as the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act. However, proceedings against him for the offence under Section 506 IPC may go on.
12. With regard to the relief sought in Criminal Petition No. 2317 of 2022 is concerned, as discussed supra, this Court holds that the proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021 for the offence under Section 506 of IPC may go on against the 1st petitioner for the offence Section 506 of IPC only which is triable by learned Magistrate. Therefore, the proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021, pending on the file of VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court, Secunderabad shall be withdrawn and transferred to learned IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the same shall be tried along with proceedings in CC No. 9751 of 2021.
8
13. With the said directions, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petitions shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 07th June , 2022 Skj.