Telangana High Court

Bayaneni Venkata Satya ... vs State Of Ap., Another on 2 August, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     CRL.P.No.6567 OF 2013
ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C

to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-5 in Cr.No.5 of

2012 of Kothagudem I-Town Police Station, Khammam District,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506 read with

Section 109 IPC and under Sections 3(ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xv), 2 (v)

(vi) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

the second respondent/complainant and learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the first respondents/State. Perused the

record.

3. The second respondent filed a private complaint before the

learned First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothagudem, against A-1 to A-7 for the offences punishable under

Sections 3(ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xv), 2 (v) (vi) of the of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

and under Sections 506 read with Section 109 IPC and the

same was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and report.

Thereafter, the Police, Kothagudem I Town registered a case in

Cr.No.5 of 2012 against A-1 to A-7.

4. It is alleged by the second respondent in the complaint that

A-1 is working as a police constable, who stayed in a portion of the

house owned by the mother of the second respondent as a tenant.

A-2 to A-7 used to visit the house of the complainant occasionally.

A-1 to A-7 are into the business of real estate and they learnt that

she had saved quite some money. A-1 had developed intimacy

with the second respondent. The second respondent is working as

Staff Nurse in Singareni Collieries Company Limited and she went

to Saudi Arabia for better salary. A-1 assured to marry her and the

said acquaintance led to relationship. A-1 to A-7 made her to

invest Rs.19 lakhs in the partnership to construct apartment at

Khammam and also assured that they will give share in the

business. They have also taken two gold chains and one bracelet

from her while A-1 has collected Rs.80,000/- for sale of Maruthi

Suziki car. The second respondent also spent over Rs.one lakh to

A-1 towards purchase of clothes, shoes etc., from Saudi Arabia.

5. It is stated that the second respondent was made to quit the

job in Suadi Arabia and come to India and at the instance of A-1 to

A-7, she came to India and they assured that A-1 would marry her.

The accused fraudulently gave false information to the Registrar of

Firms, Khammam by creating false document dated 20.07.2010 to

knock away her 40% share in the registered firm. The second

respondent was intentionally intimidated and humiliated in public

view at her house by using force and A-1 illegally married another

girl and all the accused enriched through the second respondent's

money and dishonoured her and outraged her by alleging

and questioning her modesty. The accused denied the second

respondent from enjoying her 40% share in the business and

harassed her and with the abetment of A-2 to A-5, A-1 had

sexually exploited her and forced her to leave the house and also

the business where she invested Rs.19 lakhs. A-6 and A-7 have

also criminally intimidated her several times to eliminate her in one

way or the other by seeing her end and all the accused tried to

screen the evidence and offence committed by them. A-1 to A-5,

who belongs to forward caste, have been trying to denigrate and

humiliate the second respondent as she belongs to scheduled caste

community. A-1 to A-7 through A-1 have doctored and fabricated

a blue film type video showing the second respondent in a deprived

way where A-1 had subjugated her. They have also prepared

another audio showing the second respondent in a denigrated

manner. By keeping the audio and video clippings, all the accused

blackmailed and humiliated the second respondent. Based on the

above complaint, the police registered a case against the petitioner

in Cr.No.5 of 2012 for the offences stated above. Aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner/A-5 filed the present petition seeking to quash

the proceedings against him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to filing

of the complaint in the present case, a similar complaint was filed

by the second respondent earlier and the same was registered as

Cr.No.83 of 2011 by Khammam II Town police, wherein the police

conducted investigation and filed charge sheet and it is the subject

matter of C.C.No.499 of 2011. Suppressing the said fact, again the

present complaint has been filed by the second respondent with

similar set of allegations and the same is not maintainable.

Learned counsel further submits that A-6 and A-7 filed

Crl.P.No.8028 of 2012 before this court seeking to quash the

proceedings against them in Cr.No.5 of 2012 of Kothagudem

I Town Police Station. By order dated 26.04.2013, this court

quashed the proceedings against them. Learned counsel further

submits that the second respondent neither belongs to SC

community nor ST community and she is a Christian and to prove

her caste, he has filed consolidated study, conduct & date of birth

certificate. He, therefore, prays to quash the proceedings against

the petitioner/A-5.

7. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that

the allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute the alleged

offences against the petitioner/A-5 and other accused. He further

submits the petitioner/A-5 and A-1 to A-4, who belong to forward

caste, showed the second respondent in a denigrated manner and

blackmailed her. There are sufficient allegations constituting the

alleged offences. He prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. The material on record shows that the second respondent

filed two complaints, first is dated 20.04.2011, which is subject

matter of Cr.No.83 of 2011 and the second is dated 13.12.2011,

which is subject matter of the present crime i.e., Cr.No.5 of 2012.

On a comparison of contents of both the complaints shows that

some allegations are similar and some are not. However, in the

present case, it is alleged that the second respondent belongs to

scheduled caste community while A-1 to A-5 belongs to forward

caste. The accused fraudulently gave false information to the

Registrar of Firms, Khammam by creating false document dated

20.07.2010 to knock away her 40% share in the registered firm to

cause wrongful loss to her. Apart from that, it is alleged that A-1

had promised to marry her and later A-1 criminally intimidated her

and on the instigation of A-2 to A-7 humiliated and harassed her,

denigrated her and used force against her and exploited her and

thereby committed the offences alleged.

9. This court by order dated 26.04.2013 in Crl.P.No.8028 of

2012, while quashing the proceedings against petitoners/A-6 and

A-7 in Cr.No.5 of 2012 of Kothagudem I Town Police Station,

held that the petitioners/A-6 and A-7 belong to scheduled tribe and

therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable

under the Act. Coming to the facts of the present case, A-1 to A-5

belongs to forward caste community and specific allegations have

been leveled against them other accused constituting the alleged

offences.

10. In STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL1, the

Hon'ble Apex Court laid the following guidelines while exercising

the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and gave the following

categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such power

could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice, as under:

(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,

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

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 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) (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".

11. The allegations in the FIR/complaint and the other material

accompanying thereto, disclose cognizable offences justifying

investigation by police officer. The present case does not fall in

any of the parameters of judgment of the Apex Court referred to

supra.

12. Be that as it may, the allegations in the complaint show that

the second respondent belongs to scheduled caste community

whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

complainant belongs to Christian community. Further, the

consolidated study, conduct & date of birth certificate issued by the

school also show that she is a Christian by religion. The question

as to whether she belongs to christian community or schedule caste