Momula Ananthaiah, R.R.Dt 2 ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. By Pp. And Anr.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4052 Tel

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5706 of 2013
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-A1, A2 and A4

under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in

Crime No.48 of 2013 on the file of Nawabpet Police Station, Ranga

Reddy District, registered for the offences under Section 324 read

with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC

& ST Act').

2. The 2nd respondent - complainant lodged a report before the

Police on 30.04.2013 at 6.30 PM stating that keeping in view the

earlier dispute that took place on 27.03.2013 during the Holy festival,

on 29.04.2013 at about 6.00 PM while he was returning from the

toddy shop after purchasing toddy for his father, A1 to A4 along with

some others, who all belonged to higher caste, intercepted him on the

way, abused him in filthy language and bet him with stones and sticks

causing bleeding injuries. Basing on the said report, the above crime

was registered for the above offences by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nawabpet Police Station.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no such

incident occurred on 29.04.2013 as alleged by the complainant. There

were no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners abused the

complainant in the name of his caste. Contrary to the contents of the Dr.GRR,J

complaint, the FIR was registered with an improvement to attract the

provisions of SC & ST Act to harass the petitioners. There were no

such allegations in the complaint or any witnesses were named to the

alleged incident. The complaint was lodged on 30.04.2013 at 6.30 PM

more than 24 hours after the alleged incident said to have taken place

on 29.04.2013. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh1.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on

merits.

6. Perused the record. On perusal of the complaint, it would

not disclose that the petitioners abused the complainant in the name of

his caste or to humiliate him due to his caste. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in Asmathunnisa case (supra) after referring to the judgment of the

Karnataka High Court in E. Krishnan Nayanar v. Dr. M.A.

Kuttappan [1997 Cri.LJ 2036 (Ker), stated that:

"9.The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in any place but within public view", which means that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the person is not present.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that, in any event, the words were not attributed to the appellant. She merely accompanied her husband to that place even according to the allegation in the complaint and she did not utter offending words. According to appellant, in the facts and circumstances of this case, Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act is not attracted.

25. In a recent decision in M. Mohan v. The State 2011 (3) SCALE 78 this Court again had an occasion to consider the case of similar nature and this court held that if all the facts mentioned in the complaint are accepted as correct in its entirety and even then the complaint does not disclose the essential + ingredients of an offence, in such a case the High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions are quashed under its inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

2011 (11) SCC 259 Dr.GRR,J

26. When we apply the ratio of the settled principles of law to the facts of this case, then, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the complaint qua the appellant only to prevent abuse of the process of law."

7. As the compliant would not disclose that the petitioners

abused the complainant in the name of his caste or with an intention to

humiliate him and as there was no mention of any witness to the

incident and as the complaint only disclosed that the accused persons

with an intention to beat him, came and abused him and caused

injuries to him, it would attract the ingredients of Section 324 read

with 34 IPC only. Registering the case for the offence under Section

3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act, is considered as an abuse of process of

law.

8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the

proceedings in FIR No.48 of 2013 of Nawabpet Police Station, Ranga

Reddy District, against the petitioners - A1, A2 and A4 for the

offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 only, and dismissing the

petition for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. The

concerned Police are permitted to proceed with the investigation

against the petitioners for the offence under Section 324 read with 34

IPC in the above crime.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J December 01, 2021 KTL