Kuchana Bhaskar Another vs The State Of A.P. 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4011 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5482 of 2013
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in

Crime No.116 of 2012 of Narsampet Police Station, Warangal Rural

District registered against the petitioners/accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 3(1) (iv) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(for short "the Act").

2. The second and third respondent/ de facto complainants filed

complaint alleging that both of them purchased house plot

admeasuring 1112 square yards in Sy.No.322/B in Dwarakapeta Road

under registered sale deed No.2441/2011, dated 30.08.2011 and they

are in possession of the same. They have removed thorny bushes

from it. On 29.09.2011 the petitioners filed false complaint against

them, which was registered in crime No.196 of 2011 for the offences

punishable under Sections.447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. It is

stated that while they were claiming the plot, the petitioners removed

the board and encroached into their land in the night hours. On

25.04.2012, when the de facto complainants were filling the gravel in 2 ASR,J Crlp_5482_2013

the plot, the petitioners interfered and threatened them. It is further

stated that on 03.05.2012 at about 9 am, the petitioners went to their

house and called both of them and abused them by using their caste

name as "madiga lanja kodukullara" "from where they got that much

of amount and they purchased the land" and the petitioners went

away by saying that they would see their end. On the basis of said

complaint, the Station House Officer, Narsampet registered a case in

crime No.116 of 2012 for the aforesaid offences on 03.05.2012 at 6

pm. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed this petition to

quash the proceedings.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, learned

counsel for the second and third respondent and learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for State. Perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners

along with their brothers are the owners and possessors of land

admeasuring Ac.0-17 guntas in survey No.322/A (322/A/1) at

Narsampet Village and Mandal, Warangal District. Originally the

father of petitioners by name K.Sundaraiah purchased 25 ½ guntas

under simple sale deed dated 20.10.1963 from one Nangunuru

Ammaravamma. The father of the petitioners sold an extent of 3 ASR,J Crlp_5482_2013

Ac.0-8 ½ guntas to third parties during his life time and an extent of

Ac.0-17 guntas of land is available and they are in actual possession

of the same. When the de facto complainants tried to interfere with

their possession over the land, the petitioners filed O.S.No.114 of

2012 for cancellation of document dated 30.08.2011 and obtained

status-quo orders.

5. Learned counsel further submits that on 29.09.2011 when the

second and third respondent tried to interfere with the possession of

the petitioners, they filed a complaint and the same was registered in

crime No.196 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read

with Section 34 IPC. Once again on 25.04.2012 another complaint

was lodged against the de facto complainants for their illegal

interference.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the present complaint is

filed with false allegations as a counter blast to the complaints filed

by the petitioners. He further submits that the ingredients of the

alleged offences under Section 3(1) (iv) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not made

out, as the alleged offences occurred not in a public place within

public view and the alleged offences as per the complaint allegations, 4 ASR,J Crlp_5482_2013

the incident was occurred at the house of

de facto complainants. He further submits that prima facie, the

ingredients of the offences are not attracted and continuation of

present case clearly amounts to abuse of process of law. With the

above submissions, he prayed to quash the proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the second and third respondent submits

that the allegations of the complaint, prima facie, disclose the

ingredients of the alleged offences. As such, he prayed to dismiss the

petition and allow the Investigating Agency to proceed with the

investigation.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also submits that the

allegations of the complaint make out prima facie case against the

accused and as such, prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. The case was registered for the offence under Section 3-1 (iv)

and (x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act 1 of

2016 w.e.f. 26.01.2016. The substituted corresponding provisions

are 3-1 (r) and 3-1(f) of the Act.

10. The basic ingredients of offence under Section 3-1(x) of the

Act can be classified as:-

                                           5                          ASR,J
                                                                     Crlp_5482_2013

1)"intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled caste or scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view;

11. The basic ingredients of Section 3-1 (iv) of the Act attracts

against a person who wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land,

owned by, or in the possession by a member of Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe or gets such land transferred.

12. The offence under Section 3 1(x) of the Act would indicate that

the ingredients of intentional insult or intimidation with an intention

to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under

the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim

belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Another key

ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place

within public view".

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaransingh v.State1, wherein it

was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a

lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the

road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly

be a place within the public view and also if the remark is made

(2008) 8 SCC 435 6 ASR,J Crlp_5482_2013

inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not

merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is

not in the public view.

14. As per the F.I.R., the allegations of abusing the second and

third respondent were occurred in their home i.e. within four walls of

their house. It is also not mentioned in the complaint that whether

anybody was present other than their family members at the time of

occurrence. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the alleged words

were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out.

In view of the Swaransingh's case stated supra, the scene of offence

where the allegations of abusing is not within the public view,

as none were said to be present within the home except the family

members.

15. There is dispute about the land which is the subject matter of

civil dispute between the parties in O.S.No.114 of 2012. The copy of

plaint and interim order in I.A.No.756 of 2012 in said suit were filed

along with this petition, wherein status-quo order was granted in

respect of disputed property i.e. Ac.0-17 guntas which is being

claimed by the second and third respondent and the Court directed

both the parties to maintain status-quo, since the subject matter with 7 ASR,J Crlp_5482_2013

regard to title and possession of the subject property is pending before

the civil Court and any dispute arising on account of possession of the

said property would not disclose prima facie offence under the Act.

16. In the judgment of State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal2, the Apex

Court held as under:

"In the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no

(1992) Suppl.1 SCC P.335 8 ASR,J Crlp_5482_2013

investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

17. For the foregoing reasons, by applying ratio of settled principles

of law to the facts of the case, I am of the view that the allegations of

the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted

in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence. When the

basic ingredients of offences are missing the complaint, then

permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioners

to face rigmarole of the ultimate criminal trial would be totally

unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

18. Having regard to the above discussion, I am of the view that it

is a fit case to invoke powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash

the proceedings in the aforesaid crime.

                                   9                      ASR,J
                                                         Crlp_5482_2013

19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings

against the petitioners/accused in Crime No.116 of 2012 of

Narsampet Police Station, Warangal Rural District, are hereby

quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

                                          ______________________
                                          A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J
02.08.2022
Nvl
                             10                   ASR,J
                                                 Crlp_5482_2013




    HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY




             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5482 of 2013




02.08.2022
Nvl