THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1433 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Special S.C.No.161 of 2022 pending on the file of Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act Cases and II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Adilabad, against the petitioners. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said crime. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 294(B), 427 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent - de facto complainant filed a complaint stating that on 20.07.2022 while he was in the office room of Krishnaveni Talent School, the petitioners came there and called him out from office room to talk with him. The Aaya was asked to arrange the chairs to sit. Then, these petitioners asked the 2nd respondent to provide original panchanama copies relating to the 2 land in Sy.No.88 to the extent of 800 yards. On refusal to give panchanama, both the petitioners abused 2nd respondent in the name of caste stating that "lanjakoduka peparlu enduku ivvavura? Ninnu champestam, madiga lanjakoduka". While the 2nd respondent was recording the said acts of petitioners in his mobile phone, accused No.2 snatched the mobile phone of 2nd respondent and hit it to the wall causing damage. Meanwhile, Aaya called another teacher by name Raj Kumar and on seeing the arrival of said teacher, the petitioners ran away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are civil disputes pending in between the petitioners and 2nd respondent, for which reason, false complaint is filed by the 2nd respondent. Further, the incident that has taken place is within a room, as such it is not in public view. When the said incident had occurred in a room, the provisions of SC/ST Act will not attract. Further, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 and also in Hitesh Varma v. State of Uttarakhand and another2. He argued that in case of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon'ble Supreme 1 AIR 2021 Supreme Court 5228 2 (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710 3 Court had entertained compromise to quash the case and in case of Hitesh Varma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguished from "place in public view" from "public place".
5. There is no dispute with respect to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In Ramawatar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an application made by the parties to compromise after conviction was recorded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having found that the parties have compromised and accordingly, quashed the proceedings. The said facts are not applicable to the present facts of the case. In Hitesh Varma's case, it was held that in the event of public being in private places or closed places, it would amount to "place in public view". In the present case also, the incident happened in the presence of Aaya of school. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that it does not come within the definition of a "place in public view".
6. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 4
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
_________________ K. SURENDER, J Date: 13.02.2023 rev