Telangana High Court

Jangili Surender vs The State Of A.P. Another on 18 November, 2021

Bench: G.Radha Rani

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.8697 of 2013

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner - A2 under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.199 of 2012 on the file of

Dharmapuri Police Station, Karimnagar, registered for the offence

under Section 3 (1) ((ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST Act') and

Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC.

2. The respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagitial, Karimnagar District on

22.11.2012 stating that he was working as a Sarpanch in Gram

Panchayat of Teegaladharmaram Village, Dharampuri Mandal. On

24.10.2012 at 5.00 PM, the Ex-Sarpanch Gandham Gangaiah and Upa

Sarpanch Yerrolla Chandraiah and other village elders instructed him

to bring the Pooja Articles of God from the house of one Ailneni

Prabhakar Rao. He accompanied them as usual like every year and

proceeded to the place of Jammi pooja at the outskirts of the village.

At that time, the accused persons abused him by taking his caste

name, dragged the articles from his hands and started beating him

with hands and threatened him with dire consequences and to kill his

family members. The said complaint was referred to the police and

the same was registered as Crime No.199 of 2012 for the above

offences.

Dr.GRR,J

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

Public Prosecutor. There is no representation on behalf of the 2nd

respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident

took place on 24.10.2012 and the private complaint was filed on

22.11.2010 i.e. after a lapse of 32 days. In the complaint, the

complainant inserted the sentence stating that he gave complaint to the

SI of Police on 26.10.2012 and to the SP on 29.10.2012, but not

placed those complaint copies before the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Jagitial, along with the private complaint filed before the

learned Judge. Hence, it would show that he never made any

complaint before the police for 32 days and filed the present

complaint before the Court at the instance of some third parties and

falsely implicated the petitioner and others in SC & ST Case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

complainant had a criminal record. He was cited as A4 in Crime

No.1078 of 2011 before the Kodimiyal Police Station, Karimnagar

District for the offences under Sections 448, 506 and 290 read with 34

IPC. There was a land dispute between the family members of the

petitioner and one Janike Shiva Reddy in O.S. No.198 of 2012 before

the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jagitial. The complainant was

working under the Janike Shiva Reddy and the said Janike Shiva

Reddy got foisted this false complaint through the 2nd respondent

against the petitioner. The complaint was an afterthought and was

abuse of process of law. The petitioner was working in Defence i.e. Dr.GRR,J

Indian Air Force at Bareilly, UP since more than six years. The

petitioner came on a short leave to visit his parents and he was falsely

implicated in the present case. The Investigating Officer in the remand

case diary dated 27.03.2013 stated that there was nothing to suggest

that the offence under Section 3 (1) (ii) of SC & ST Act had occurred

and hence, it was clear that the complainant filed a false complaint

and prayed to quash the proceedings in FIR No.199 of 2012 against

the petitioner.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

7. Perused the record. The record would disclose that there

was a delay of 32 days in lodging the complaint by the complainant.

The complainant though stated that he approached the police,

Dharmapuri on 26.10.2012 and also the Superintendent of Police,

Karimnagar on 29.10.2012, failed to file the copies of the complaints

given to them. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilawar Signh v. State of

Delhi1, wherein it was held that:

"8. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. In Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1973 SC 501), it was held that the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the

2007 SC 3234 Dr.GRR,J

advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. In Ram Jag and others v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1974 SC 606) the position was explained that whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused and/or when plausible explanation is offered for the same. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness or authenticity of the version of the prosecution.

9. The complainant has attempted to explain the delay by stating that the matter was reported to the police but the police did not take any action. Such statement can hardly be taken to have explained the delay. It is the simplest of things to contend that the police, though report had been lodged with it, had not taken any steps. But it has to be established by calling for the necessary records from the police to substantiate that in fact a report with the police had been lodged and that the police failed to take up the case."

8. No plausible explanation was given by the complainant for

the delay in lodging the report in this case also and the complainant

failed to file necessary evidence to show that he filed a report with the

police and the police failed to act upon it. The copy of the written

statement filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in O.S No.198

of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Jagitial would

disclose that there was a civil dispute between the family of the

petitioner and one Janike Shiva Reddy and said Janike Shiva Reddy

filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the family members of the

petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also filed a copy of

the remand case diary filed against the complainant herein in FIR

No.108 of 2011 wherein he was shown as A4 for the offences

registered against him under Sections 448, 506, 290 read with 34 IPC.

In the remand case diary filed by the Investigating Officer against A4

and A8 in this case, on 27.03.2013 it was also mentioned by him that Dr.GRR,J

throughout the course of investigation, there was nothing to suggest

that the offence under Section 3 (1) (ii) of SC & ST Act had occurred

and only the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST Act was

made out.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramavatar v. State of Madhya

Pradesh2 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..."

10. Considering the delay in lodging the report and the civil

disputes between the family of the petitioner and one Janike Shiva

Reddy, and the complaint was lodged by the person alleged to be

working under Janike Shiva Reddy and as the petitioner was working

in Indian Air Force and that he came on a short leave to his native

place and no overt acts were attributed against him, continuation of

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

proceedings against him is considered as an abuse of process of law

and hence, fit to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.199

of 2012 on the file of Dharmapuri Police Station, Karimnagar.

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

proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.199 of 2012 on the file