Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

India Srinivasa Reddy vs The Subdivisional Police ... on 27 June, 2022

Bench: Subba Reddy Satti

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI


        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.376 OF 2022

ORDER:-


      The Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) is

filed by the petitioner assailing the order, dated 08.02.2022

passed in Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2021 in Spl.S.C.No.32 of 2019 on the

file of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs, STs

(POA) Act 1989 -cum- VII Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Ongole, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the

sessions case was dismissed.


2.    Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against the

petitioner before Ongole I Town Police Station and the same was

registered as F.I.R.No.146 of 2018 for the offences punishable

under Section 354(A) and 354(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short „IPC‟) and Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Schedule Castes

and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

short „SC & ST (POA) Act‟). After completion of investigation,

Police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as

Spl.S.C.32 of 2019.

3. The sum and substance of the allegations of the

complainant, as can be seen from the charge sheet, is that the

petitioner being the officer of the victim had sexually harassed

her by summoning her to his chambers and also over phone

repeatedly. It also reveals that the petitioner summoned the

victim to his chambers and used the words that, she looks nice

and that she does not look of the age to have children of teenage

etc. The victim belonged to SC community. Hence, charge sheet

was filed for the aforementioned offences.

4. Subsequent to numbering of the sessions case, revision

petitioner/accused filed Crl.M.P.No.25 of 2021 seeking to

discharge him from the case. The same was dismissed holding

that prima facie examination of the facts show that there is

material on record to connect the petitioner with the crime.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

5. Heard Sri Alapati Vivekananda, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

learned Sessions Judge failed to consider that the petitioner was

falsely implicated in the above crime. He would also contend

that the petitioner was placed as incharge officer where the

complainant was working only for fifteen days. Since the

complainant is not completing her work, he enquired about

status of pending work. Thus, the complainant filed this false

complaint. He would also contend that there is no iota of

evidence that, petitioner harassed the complainant. He would

further submit that the alleged offence took place within four

walls and not in a public place, as such the offence under SC &

ST (POA) Act is not attracted. In support of his contention,

learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment

rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State

of Uttarakhand and Anr.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner

eventually prays to allow the revision.

7. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor assisted the Court since the revision is coming up for

admission. The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor,

would contend that a perusal of the complaint and charge sheet

prima facie discloses clear allegations against the petitioner. He

would contend that the petitioner being higher officer of the

complainant, called the complainant to his Chambers and used

the words which attract the offence punishable under Section

3(1)(w)(ii) of SC & ST (POA) Act and after considering the facts of

the case, Court below opined that there is sufficient ground to

proceed against the petitioner. Hence, the order impugned does

not seek indulgence of this Court.

8. I have given my anxious consideration and perused the

record.

9. This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of

Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court. This

Court, sitting in revision would not re-appreciate factual matrix.

The scope of the revision is very limited.

2021 (1)L.S. 66 (SC)

10. In Ram Briksh Singh and others vs. Ambika Yadav and

another2 it was held:

"Sections 397 to 401 of the Code are group of sections conferring higher and superior courts a sort of supervisory jurisdiction. These powers are required to be exercised sparingly. Though the jurisdiction under Section 401 cannot be invoked to only correct wrong appreciation of evidence and the High Court is not required to act as a court of appeal but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice."

11. Thus, Revisional jurisdiction is the supervisory jurisdiction

exercised by the Court to correct the manifest error in the order of

sub-ordinate Courts.

12. No doubt, discharge application is one of the remedies

available to the person who has been charged maliciously. If the

allegations made against him are false, the criminal code provides

provisions for filing a discharge application. If the material placed

before the Court is not sufficient to satisfy the offence and in the

absence of any prima facie case against him/her, the Court would

discharge the individual. However, it is well settled law that the

defence of the accused cannot be looked into and probative value

of evidence need not be gone into at the stage of considering

discharge petition.

13. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal3, the Hon‟ble

Apex Court framed the following factors to be looked into while

dealing with discharge petitions:

2004 (7) SCC 665

AIR 1979 SC 366

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a Rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

14. In the present case, as per the averments in the charge

sheet, revision petitioner, officer, belonged to OC and the

complainant, sub-ordinate to the petitioner, belonged to SC

community. A perusal of the material on record shows that the

petitioner used words, which perpetrate acts of sexual nature and

prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, which attract

the offence under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC & ST (POA) Act. In view

of the same, the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Sec

227 Cr.P.C. lacks merit.

15. As rightly held by the Court below, in Hitesh Verma's case,

relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the offence was

punishable under Sections 3(1) (r)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act, but not