Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Pecheti Ranga Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 November, 2021

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5162 of 2021

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking

quash of charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the

learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special

Court for S.C and S.T Atrocities Cases, Eluru, West Godavari

District.


      Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/

State. Notice issued to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

returned with endorsement „item returned refused‟. Therefore, it is

evident that despite service of notice, the 2nd respondent did not

turn up for hearing in this Criminal Petition.

The petitioners are A-1 to A-3 in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021 on

the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge

cum Special Court for S.C and S.T Atrocities Cases, Eluru, West

Godavari District. The 2nd respondent, who is the de facto

complainant, lodged a report with police stating that he belongs to

Scheduled Caste and on 12.12.2018 that his marriage with the

daughter of A-1 and A-2 was performed and it was an inter-caste

marriage. The third accused is the son of A-1 and A-2 and A-1 to

A-3 belong to BC-B caste. It is stated that the petitioners, who are

A-1 to A-3, have harassed the de facto complainant from the

inception of the marriage saying that the de facto complainant

belongs to an inferior community. It is stated that on several

occasions, the petitioners have insulted the de facto complainant

in the name of his caste. According to the de facto complainant the

incidents took place inside house. The said report lodged by the de

facto complainant was initially registered as a case in Crime 246

of 2019 of Mummidivaram Police Station, East Godavari District,

for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (for short „SC and ST Act‟), which was subsequently

transferred to Eluru II Town Police Station. Eventually after

completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the

charge sheet in the trial Court. The said case is now pending

before the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even

as per the allegations set out in the F.I.R, the alleged insult said to

have been made by the petitioners against the de facto

complainant in the name of his caste took place only within the

four corners of the house and it has not taken place in public view

and as such the facts of the case do not constitute any offence

punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act. Therefore, he would

pray for quash of the charge sheet filed against the petitioners. In

support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of Hitesh Verma V. the State of Uttarakhand1

wherein it is held that insult made in the name of the caste which

is not in the public view do not constitute any such offence under

the provisions of the SC and ST Act.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal

Petition. He would submit that there are clear allegations in the

F.I.R to show that the petitioners have several times insulted the

de facto complainant in the name of his caste and the said

allegations clearly constitute an offence punishable under Section

3(1)(r)(s) of the SC and ST Act.

(2020) 10 SCC 710

In order to appreciate the above rival contentions of both the

parties, it is apposite to extract Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC

and ST Act for which the petitioners are being prosecuted and they

are read as follows:

Section 3(1)(r):

Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

Section 3(1)(s):

abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;

A reading of above Section 3(1)(r) of the SC and ST Act

makes it manifest that mere insult or intimidation with an

intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe by itself is not made an offence. Only when the said insult or

intimidation is made in any place within the public view, then only

it was made an offence. Similarly, Section 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST

Act also makes it manifest that the alleged abuse of a Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe must be in any place within the public

view. So, to attract the offences both under Sections 3(1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act, the predominant requirement is that

the alleged insult or abuse in the name of the caste with an

intention to insult them or humiliate them in the name of their

caste shall take place within the public view. It clearly indicates

that a mere abuse or insult made in the name of the caste within

the four corners of a house, which is not in public view, do not

attract the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and

3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act.

In fact, the legal position in this regard is not res integra and

the same has been well settled. The Apex Court in the case of

Hitesh Verma V. the State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) had

an occasion to deal with the said proposition of law and held at

para No.15 as follows:

"As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet."

Therefore, the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgment of

the Apex Court squarely applies to the present facts of the case as

the allegation against the petitioners in the present case is also

that they have abused the de facto complainant and insulted him

in the name of his caste within the four walls of their house.

Even as regards the allegation that one of the petitioners has

abused the de facto complainant in the name of his caste and

insulted him over phone, the legal position in this regard is also

not an undecided question of law and it has been also dealt with

by this Court in the case of Potluri Poorna Chandra Prabhakar

Rao V. the State of A.P.2 wherein it is held as follows:

"The second ground raised for quashing the proceedings that according to the averments made by the de facto complainant in her complaint that the petitioner herein telephoned her and abused her on the ground of caste. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the averment is taken to be true for the purposes of the case, the offence is not made out. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to section 3 (1)

(x) of the said Act, which reads as under:

"Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."

In the present case, the averment made by the de facto complainant that she was abused on telephone. Therefore, this Court holds that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the said Act are not attracted to the present set of facts."

2001 (2) ALD (Cri) 834

The ratio laid in the aforesaid judgment of this Court

squarely applies to the present facts of the case. In the instant

case also, it is alleged that A-1 while talking to A-3 over phone

abused the de facto complainant in the name of the caste. As the

alleged abuse is not made within the public view as required under

the aforesaid Section of law, no offence is made out for the offence

punishable under the aforesaid Section of law.

Therefore, in view of the legal position enunciated in the

above judgments and as discussed supra, the allegations set out in

the F.I.R or in the charge sheet do not constitute any offence

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections