Smt. Vasala Susheela, Nalgonda 2 ... vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp., Hyd And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3488 Tel

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.6004 of 2013
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3

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

FIR No.96 of 2013 on the file of Nereducherla Police Station,

Nalgonda District.

2. The 2nd respondent - de facto complainant filed a complaint

against the petitioners on 28.03.2013 at 5.00 PM at Nereducherla PS

stating that on 15.03.2013 at 5.00 PM the petitioners 1 to 3 came to

her house and as she was not available in the house abused her

husband in filthy language in the name of the caste stating that she

was avoiding to pay the amount due to them and caught hold of the

collar of her husband and her neighbours resisted them. Basing on the

said complaint, the police registered a case in FIR No.96 of 2013 for

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

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

& ST Act')

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

Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent -

de facto complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that FIR in

Crime No.96 of 2013 did not constitute the alleged offence much less

the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act, there was a Dr.GRR,J

civil dispute in between the 1st petitioner-A1 and the 2nd respondent

with regard to repayment of an amount of Rs.60,000/- which was

borrowed by the 2nd respondent from the 1st petitioner on 04.02.2010

by executing a promissory note in favour of the 1st petitioner.

Whenever, the 1st petitioner asked the 2nd respondent to discharge the

legally enforceable debt due under the promissory note, the 2nd

respondent and her husband used to quarrel with her. Apart from that

the 2nd respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the 1st

petitioner and the 1st petitioner also retained her gold chain with the

2nd respondent. On 15.12.2012 at about 10.00 AM when the 1st

petitioner went to the house of the 2nd respondent to ask for her money

and gold chain, the 2nd respondent and her husband abused the

1st petitioner which was witnessed by the 3rd petitioner and that a

complaint was lodged by the 1st petitioner against the 2nd respondent

and her husband. The same was registered as FIR No.331 of 2012

dated 15.12.2012 for the offence under Section 509 read with 34 IPC

by the Nereducherla Police. Inspite of the repeated requisitions and

demands, the 2nd respondent failed in discharging the amount due to

the 1st petitioner under the promissory note dated 04.02.2010. Vexed

with the attitude of the 2nd respondent, the 1st petitioner filed O.S

No.36 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda on

04.02.2013 for recovery of the amount due to her. The 3rd petitioner

was a witness to the said transaction. The 2nd respondent with an evil

intention to harass the petitioners, as a counter blast to the case in

Crime No.331 of 2012 registered against the 2nd respondent and her Dr.GRR,J

husband, filed a false complaint against the petitioners. The police,

without conducting any preliminary enquiry, registered the case

against the petitioners and prayed to quash the FIR.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that

the investigation could not be conducted due to the stay granted in the

present petition.

6. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the

incident occurred on 15.03.2013, but as per the complaint filed by the

2nd respondent, the same was lodged by her on 28.03.2013. Thus,

there was a delay of 13 days in lodging the report. The complaint also

would disclose that the 2nd respondent was not present at the time of

the incident and the accused persons abused her husband in the name

of the caste questioning her absence at the house. Learned counsel for

the petitioners also filed the copy of the FIR in Crime No.331 of 2012

along with the complaint given by the 1st petitioner against the 2nd

respondent, that on 15.12.2012 at 10.00 AM when she went to the

house of the 2nd respondent, and asked her for the money due to her,

which was given to the 2nd respondent as hand loan and the gold chain

given to her, the 2nd respondent and her husband abused her in filthy

language and insulted her modesty in the street. Learned counsel for

the petitioners also filed a copy of the plaint in O.S No.36 of 2013

filed by the 1st petitioner against the 2nd respondent in the Court of the

Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda for recovery of money of

Rs.1,03,200/-. The said suit was filed by the 1st petitioner for an Dr.GRR,J

amount of Rs.60,000/- taken by the 2nd respondent as a hand loan on

04.02.2013 under the demand promissory note. Thus, these would

disclose that the present complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent as a

counter blast to the criminal case and the civil suit filed for recovery

of money by the 1st petitioner.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent case in Ramavatar v.

State of Madhya Pradesh1 held that:

"15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings..."

8. Considering the above said judgment delivered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court on 25.10.2021 and as the complaint appears to be

lodged as a counter blast to the civil case filed against her for recovery

of money that too with a delay of 13 days without any explanation for

the said delay and the compliant also prima facie would disclose that

Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011 Dr.GRR,J

the complainant was not present at the time of the alleged abuses

made by the petitioners, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners in FIR No.96 of 2013.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.96 of 2013 on the file of

Nereducherla Police Station, Nalgonda District.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 16, 2021 KTL