Telangana High Court
Naveen Kumar Agarwal, Hyd., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp And Anr., on 8 November, 2021
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETION No. 4786 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner - accused under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.151 of
2014 on the file of Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad, registered
for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988 (for short 'SC
& ST Act').
2. The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent - de facto
complainant and one Lateefuzama were the joint owners of the land in
Sy. No.194/B1/1, admeasuring 4750 sq.mts. or equivalent to 5680
sq.yds. situated near Railway Station, Ward No.7, Begumpet,
Hyderabad and they offered to sell the said property to the petitioner-
accused and he agreed to purchase the same and an agreement of sale
was executed on 14.02.2014 at Hyderabad. The petitioner - accused
agreed to pay advance of Rs.5,00,000/- and obtained the signatures of
the de facto complainant and her co-seller on the document, but failed
to pay the amount. As such, the de facto complainant personally met
the petitioner-accused at his Flat No.202, Koundilya Apartment,
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and she requested him to pay the advance
sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. But, the petitioner gave evasive
replies and insulted her in filthy and unparliamentary language in the
name of her caste. The petitioner-accused also threatened her with
Dr.GRR,J
dire consequences. As such, she lodged the report. Basing on the said
report, the Begumpet Police registered the case vide FIR No.151 of
2014 under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor. There is no representation by the learned counsel
for the respondent No.2-de facto complaint. As the matter is
pertaining to the year 2014, orders are being passed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contents
of the complaint, lodged by the de facto complainant, would not
attract the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act and the
same was civil in nature. Only to harass the petitioner, it was
coloured into criminal offence. The document styled as agreement of
sale was pendentilite. The recitals of the document would show that
part of the advance amount was paid and remaining amount would be
paid at the convenience of the parties. The dispute, out of the said
document, would be civil in nature. Violation of the conditions of the
said document would attract civil case before the appropriate forum
and prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
6. Perused the record. The complaint would disclose that the
petitioner-accused abused the complainant in the name of her caste
Dr.GRR,J
when she met him at his Flat No.202, Koundilya Apartment,
Himayathnagar and requested him for the advance sale consideration
amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act is
substituted by Section 3(1)(r) by Act 1 of 2016 with effect from
26.1.2016. Section 3 (1) (r) of the SC & ST Act reads as under:
"intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. The State of
Uttarakhand1 wherein it was held that:
10. "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."
8. Considering the above judgment, no ingredients of Section
3 (1) (r) or 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act are made out from the facts
of the case.
9. The dispute between the parties is also civil in nature.
Violation of the conditions of the agreement of sale by the parties
would attract a civil case. The present complaint appears to have been
foisted against the petitioner-accused by giving it a colour of criminal
offence. As such, lodging of the complaint against the petitioner-
2020 (10) SCC 710
Dr.GRR,J
accused by the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant is considered as
an abuse of process of law and hence, it is liable to be quashed.
10. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the
proceedings in Crime No.151 of 2014 on the file of Begumpet Police
Station, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
November 8th, 2021
KTL
