D.Naresh Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5082 AP

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.2058 of 2018

ORDER:-

      This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of

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

quash the Proceedings in SC ST Sessions Case No.152 of

2017 pending against the petitioner on the file of the learned

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA)

Act-cum-X      Additional    District    &    Sessions   Judge,   East

Godavari      District,   Rajamahendravaram        for   the   offences

punishable under Sections 353, 354, 509 IPC and under

Sections 3(1) (r) (s) (w) (i) (ii) and 3(2) (va) of SCs and STs

(POA) Act (for short „the Act, 1989).

      2.      Brief facts of the case, as per the charge sheet, are

as follows;

      The de facto complainant (L.W.1) is working as a part

time Sweeper on contract basis in the office of Gram

Panchayat,       Anaparthi    and       she   belongs    to    SC-Relli

Community.         Nandi Kumari (L.W.2) is also working as

Sweeper in the same Gram Panchayat along with the de facto

complainant and that she belongs to SC-Madiga by Caste. On

15.4.2017, both of them were deputed to clean the drainage

canal running from Panchayat Office to Varthaka Sangham

Kalyana Mandapam in Anaparthi. In the said process of

cleaning they have reached drain canal running in front of the

house of the accused. While they were attending the work, the
                                    2




accused came out from his house in rash manner and

obstructed them from discharging their duty by shouting

"PUDIKA      THEEYATANIKI        LEDU,          NEE     AMMA      DRAIN

ANUKUNTUNNAVA,            PAKI          MUNDALLARA,              MADIGA

LANJALLARA". When the de facto complainant continuing her

work, he pushed her by placing his hands on her chest by

shouting „NEEKU CHEPITHE ARTHAMU KAADA" and also

abused her and he also abused Nandi Kumari (L.W.2) in filthy

language. Then they both returned to Panchayat Office and

after   discussing   with their        colleague      Sweepers    in   the

Panchayat office, the de facto complainant lodged report by

9.00 p.m., on that night with the police.

        Basing on the report given by the de facto complainant,

the Additional Sub-Inspector of Police, Anaparthi Police

Station, registered the case in Crime No.71 of 2017 for the

offences under Sections 353, 354, 509 IPC and under

Sections 3(1) (r) (s) (w) (i) (ii) and 3(2) (va) of the Act, 1989 and

issued FIR. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST Cell-

II, East Godavari District, Kakinada had taken up the

investigation on the instructions of the Superintendent of

Police, East Godavari District. In the course of investigation,

he visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses,

prepared     scene   observation       report   in    the   presence    of

mediators and also obtained Caste Certificates of the victims,

who are the de facto complainant and Nandi Kumari (L.W.2)

to the effect that the de facto complainant belongs to SC-Relli
                                  3




Caste and Nandi Kumari (L.W.2) belongs to SC-Madiga Caste

and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.

3.     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st

respondent. Though the notice was served on the 2nd

respondent, none appeared on his behalf.

4.     Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

incident did not take place within the public view and that

the report was lodged with abnormal delay of about 12 hours

and the same was also after due deliberations and as an

afterthought and it was at the instance of Executive Officer,

Gram     Panchayat,     who   developed    grudge    against    the

petitioner/accused since he was questioned by the petitioner

about his illegal acts etc., In view of the same, continuation of

further proceedings before the Court below would be nothing

but abuse of process of Court. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further contended that on perusal of Section 161

Cr.P.C. statements, it is clear that none of them is eye witness

to the alleged incident and as such the alleged incident if true

has not taken place within the view of the public.

5.   Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the

averments    in   the   charge   sheet    show   that   there   are

accusations against the petitioner and the statements of

witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie

make out a case against the petitioner and that whether the

offences took place in the public view or not being question of
                                  4




fact, the same has to be decided only after full fledged trial,

but not at this initial stage.

6. Admittedly, the incident said to be taken place during

morning hours and it was in front of the house of the

petitioner. It is alleged that the accused had voluntarily

picked up quarrel and obstructed duties of the de facto

complainant and Nandi Kumari (L.W.2.) On perusal of the

charge sheet as well as the statements of the witnesses

recorded and other record, they go to show that the victims

are belonging to Scheduled Caste and according to them their

modesty was also outraged and the petitioner abused them

touching their caste name.

7.    Section 3 of the Act, 1989 reads as follows;

         Section 3.     Punishments for offences atrocities
         1[(1)   Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled
         Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--

         (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;


         (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
         Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within
         public view;
         (w) (i) intentionally touches a woman belonging to a
         Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that
         she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
         Tribe, when such act of touching is of a sexual
         nature and is without the recipients consent;
                                       5




                (ii) uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature
                towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or
                a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a
                Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.


                3 (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled
                Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
                [(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule,
                against a person or property, knowing that such
                person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
                Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such
                member, shall be punishable with such punishment
                as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of
                1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to
                fine;]



8.           Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment of Delhi High Court in Ms. Gayatri @ Apurna

Singh vs State1 (W.P.(CRL) 3083 of 2016), wherein it is

held


                "40. Daya Bhatnagar (supra) was a decision
                rendered by the learned Single Judge on a
                reference being made to him on account of a
                difference of opinion between two learned
                Judges constituting the Division Bench. The
                learned Single Judge S.K. Aggarwal, J.

concurred with the view of B.A. Khan, J and disagreed with the view of V.S. Aggarwal, J. S.K. Aggarwal, J. approved the following observation of B.A. Khan, J. in his opinion:

2017(6) AD (Delhi) 14

"If the accused does not know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating is a member of SC or ST, an offence under this section would not be constituted. Similarly, if he does not do all this at any place within "public view", the offence would not be made out. Therefore, to attract an offence under Section 3(i)(x), an accused must know that victim belongs to SC/ST caste and he must intentionally insult, intimidate and humiliate him/her at a place within "public view". The place need not be a public place. It could be even at a private place provided the utterance was made within "public view"." (emphasis supplied)

41. S.K. Aggarwal, J. proceeded to examine the meaning of the expression "public view" used in section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. He referred to the meaning of the word "public" found in legal dictionaries, and also referred to the Statement of Object and Reasons of the SC/ST Act. After analyzing the provisions of the SC/ST Act and in particular sub-clause

(x) of section 3(1) of the said Act - which makes "utterances punishable", he observed:

"The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of Insult', "intimidation' and "humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view'. Offences

under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned brother Mr. Justice B.A. Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under:

"I accordingly hold that expression within 'public view' occurring in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way. If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement

of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression used."

42. In Daya Bhatnagar (supra), the majority view taken by the Court was that to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act the place where the offending action takes place should be within public view that does not mean that the place should be a public place. It could well be a private place, provided the utterance was made within public view. "Public view" is understood to mean a place where public persons are present" howsoever small in number they may be. Public persons are independent and impartial persons who are not interested in any of the parties. The same has been explained to mean persons not having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant. Such persons are as good as strangers who do not have any liking for the complainant through any close relationship or any business commercial or other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way."

9. In the very same judgment, it is also held that another

essential requirement for the above offence to be attracted

is there must be intentional insult or intimidation with

intention to humiliate should take place in any place within

public view.

10. The facts therein are that the accused seems to have

abused a particular caste on social network sites/face book.

The reporter of the crime who belonged to that caste, gave

report, stating that updating bad words against his caste

amounts to insult and the same is unacceptable for him and

so gave report. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances

commenting a caste in internet without aiming a particular

individual who is a member of that caste, is held, would not

amount to an offence punishable under the Act, 1989. It is

also held therein that the insult faced by a member of the

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must have been made

with the intention, against that member. It is also held

therein that the derogatory utterance made in generalized

terms in a public gathering even in the name of the Caste

would not attract an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act,

1989. Therefore, the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR as

well as proceedings against the petitioner therein in respect of

the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, 1989.

11. Thus, the above said judgment may not be applicable to

the facts and circumstances of the present case at its

threshold. Evidence is to be let in by the prosecution as the

utterances said to be made by the accused are against an

individual and it is in public place which is a street in village,

where Nandi Kumari (L.W.2) was also present.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance

on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union

Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and others

in Civil Appeal No.2294-2320 of 2008, dated 21.2.2008 and

contended that the de facto complainant/victim is only a part

time employee of Gram Panchayat and hence she will not

come within the meaning of Public Servant and as such 353

IPC is not attracted.

13. Section 353 IPC deals with punishment for assaulting

or using criminal force to deter public servant from

discharging his duty. The judgment referred supra relating to

recruitment of contractual employment by Municipal

Corporation and whether that servant would be regarded as

Government Servant or not?. Here in this case, it is not the

Government Servant but it is Public Servant if was obstructed

from discharging his duty, Section 353 IPC would attract or

not is a disputed question of fact and the same can be

established after full fledged trial. Therefore the judgment

relied upon for the petitioner is not of much helpful.

14. At this juncture, this Court has to look into the contents

of the complaint, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and the

charge-sheet. On perusal of the allegations in the charge

sheet, it prima facie discloses that specific accusations are

made as against the petitioner. At this stage, this Court would

not be in a position to ascertain truth or otherwise of the said

accusations. The defences that are sought to be raised are all

being questions of fact, they have to be established in the

course of trial. This Court is conscious of the fact that under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is primarily concerned with

the accusations that are made in the charge-sheet and other

material available on record, but cannot make a roving

enquiry about the truthfulness or falsity of the same.

15. In view of the same, this is premature for this Court to

interfere in the proceedings in SC ST Sessions Case No.152 of

2017 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial

of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-X Additional

District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari District,

Rajamahendravaram. Hence the Criminal Petition is liable to

be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal

Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date:10.08.2022 GR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2058 of 2018

Date: 10.08.2022

GR