Bald allegations without public view do not attract SC/ST Act provisions: AP HC quashes proceedings against several accused, Read Order

"The allegations must establish a prima facie case, and mere bald assertions cannot justify prosecution under the SC/ST Act", observed the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case arising from an alleged property dispute, where multiple accused sought the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under the Indian penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

While the petitioners argued that the allegations were vague and lacked essential ingredients of the offense, the respondent opposed the plea, asserting that material evidence existed against some of the accused. The Court carefully examined the claims and legal precedents before rendering its decision.

Brief Facts:

The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 to 4 & 7 and Accused Nos. 5 and 6). They seek to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.SPl.No.59 of 2019 before the Special Judge for SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The charges include offences under Sections 354 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the allegations against them are vague and general in nature. It was submitted that a civil dispute is already pending between the brother of Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 1, and that the current complaint was filed to exert pressure in the civil matter. The counsel further contended that no specific overt acts have been attributed to the petitioners that would justify the charges against them. It was argued that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process, and hence, the case should be quashed.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the petitions, stating that prima facie allegations exist against the petitioners regarding the commission of the alleged offences. However, it was conceded that the proceedings against Accused Nos. 3, 4, and 7 could be quashed. The counsel maintained that the charges against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 should not be quashed due to the specific allegations made against them.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor also supported the arguments of Respondent No. 2, contending that the proceedings should continue against the remaining accused.

Observations of the Court:

The Court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised only in cases where there is a clear abuse of legal process or glaring injustice. It noted that these powers should be used to "do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case." It noted that "except bald allegations, there is no material to show that Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7 insulted or intimidated and abused Respondent No.2 in the name of her caste within public view."

Citing Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, it emphasized that "the basic ingredient that the words were uttered ‘in any place within public view’ is not made out." Similarly, referring to Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court noted, "Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not ‘in any place within public view,’ the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent."

Regarding Accused Nos.1 and 2, the Court observed that there was an ongoing property dispute and that "the allegations levelled against them are specific in nature." It held that "there is a verifiable material against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, which has to be decided during trial." Thus, their proceedings could not be quashed at this stage.

However, for Accused Nos.3 to 7, the Court concluded that "the allegations do not make out a prima facie case," and quashed the proceedings against them.

The decision of the Court:

The criminal petition filed by Accused Nos.3, 4, and 7 was partly allowed, and the proceedings against them were quashed. However, the petition against Accused Nos.1 and 2 was dismissed.

The petition filed by Accused Nos.5 and 6 was allowed, and the proceedings against them were also quashed.

All pending miscellaneous petitions were ordered to be closed.

Picture Source :