Beema Manemma, 3 Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 247 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.6576 OF 2013

ORDER:

Heard Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri S.Venkat Sainadh, learned Special

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. None appears for

the de facto complainant/2nd respondent herein.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking

quashment of Crime No.100 of 2013 of M.R.Palli Police

Station, Chittoor District, registered against the petitioners

herein for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners herein are the accused

Nos.1 to 4 in the said crime. The 1st petitioner herein is the

mother and she is the wife of one late Sri Jagannadham and

the petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of the 1st petitioner.

3. The sum and substance of the complaint filed by

the 2nd respondent herein is that she belongs to a scheduled

caste and she purchased 20 ankanams of house site from the

1st petitioner for a consideration of Rs.1,600/- in the year

1999 and that out of the said extent, the 1st petitioner herein

highhandedly occupied an extent of 4 ankanams. It is further

alleged that though the complainant questioned the 1st

petitioner on a number of occasions earlier, she did not

respond and that on 07.04.2013 at about 6-00 p.m., when

the de facto complainant questioned the 1st petitioner herein,

she abused the de facto complainant in filthy language by

referring to her caste. With the said allegations, the 2nd

respondent-de facto complainant lodged a complaint before

the Station House Officer, M.R.Palli Police Station to take

action against the 1st petitioner and her children, who are the

petitioners 2 to 4 herein. On the basis of the said complaint,

the police registered the present Crime No.100 of 2013 on

19.04.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'). In the present

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings.

4. It is contended by Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned

counsel for the petitioners that the criminal prosecution

sought to be launched against the petitioners herein on the

basis of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent-de facto

complainant is a patent abuse of process of law and opposed

to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. It is

argued in elaboration by the learned counsel that the

contents of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein

do not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It is

also the submission of the learned counsel that there is no

statement in the complaint that the alleged incident took

place in the public view. In support of his submissions and

contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the following

judgements:

(1) Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1.

(2) Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh2.

5. Per contra, it is strenuously contended by the

learned Assistant Special Public Prosecutor, Sri S.Venkat

Sainadh, that there is absolutely no abuse of process of law in

the prosecution launched against the petitioner and non-

mention of the term 'public view' in the complaint is not fatal

to the case of the prosecution and the said aspect needs to be

gone into during the course of trial and adjudication. It is

also the submission of the learned counsel that Section 482

Cr.P.C. can be invoked only in rarest of rare cases and the

instant case does not fall under the said category. In support

of his submissions and contentions, learned Public

Prosecutor places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in a case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India

Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others3.

6. The information available before this Court

manifestly discloses that in the complaint, the 2nd

respondent-de facto complainant stated that though the 1st

petitioner sold an extent of 20 ankanams of house site in the

(2008) 12 SCC 531

(2011) 11 SCC 259

S.L.P. (Criminal) No.4931 of 2020 Dated 26.11.2020

year 1999, accused No.1 highhandedly occupied an extent of

4 ankanams out of the said extent and on 07.04.2013, when

the de facto complainant questioned about the same, accused

No.1 abused the de facto complainant in filthy language,

touching the caste name. It is also very much evident from a

reading of the contents of the complaint that except

requesting the police authorities to take action against the

petitioners 2 to 4 herein also, the de facto complainant did

not make any allegations against the petitioners 2 to 4. In

this context, it may be appropriate and apposite to refer to the

relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter II of the Act deals with

the offences of atrocities. Section 3 of the Act deals with the

punishment for offences of atrocities. The provisions of law

which is relevant and germane for the purpose of adjudication

of the issue in the present Criminal Petition is Section 3(1)(x)

of the Act, which stipulates that "whoever, not being a

member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe

intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a

member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any

place within public view shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six

months but which may extend to five years and with fine".

7. The above said provisions of law fell for

consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gorige

Pentaiah's case (1 supra). In the said reported case, the

appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court approached the High

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and sought quashment of

the proceedings, emanating from Crime No.281 of 2004 of

Uppal Police Station, Hyderabad, and the composite High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide orders dated 19.09.2006,

dismissed the Criminal Petition. Against the said order of

dismissal, the accused therein filed Criminal Appeal before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court,

while referring to the earlier judgments in the cases of State

of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4, Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary5

and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V. Mohd. Sharaful

Haque6, quashed the complaint and at paragraph No.6 held

as under:

"In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused- appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to

1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

(1992) 4 SCC 305

(2005) 1 SCC 122

continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."

8. In the instant case also, a perusal of the complaint

made by the 2nd respondent herein shows that necessary

ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are conspicuously

absent. There is absolutely no statement in the complaint

that the alleged incident had taken place within the public

view. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the above

referred judgment, the contention of the learned Public

Prosecutor that the absence of the phrase 'public view' is not

fatal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the

said contention of the learned Public Prosecutor stands

rejected.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (4

supra) at paragraph No.102, held as under:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in

support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

10. There is absolutely no second opinion with regard

to the settled principle of law, as contended by the learned

Public Prosecutor, that the jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised very sparingly.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the instant case

squarely falls under the guideline No.1 laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (4 supra), wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that where the allegations made

in the first information report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do

not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused. Therefore, in the definite and

considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case to exercise

the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. It is also to be noted that in Skoda Auto

Volkswagen India Private Limited's case (3 supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to the earlier decisions of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (4 supra).

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on which

the learned Public Prosecutor seeks to place reliance, would

not render any assistance to the prosecution. It is also

required to be noted, at the cost of repetition, that without

making any allegations against the petitioners 2 to 4, the 2nd

respondent herein made a request in the complaint to take

action against them also. In the absence of any necessary

ingredients of the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and

in view of the findings recorded supra, this Court is of the

opinion that the impugned prosecution is a patent abuse of

process of law and is liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed,

quashing the Crime No.100 of 2013 of M.R.Palli Police

Station, Chittoor District, registered against the petitioners

herein.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case,

shall stand closed.

___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

21-01-2021 siva

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6576 OF 2013

Date: 21-01-2021

siva