Avula Ailaiah, Nalgonda Dt Anr., vs State Of Ap., Rep. Pp And Anr.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4212 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.15915 of 2013
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is directed under Section 482 Cr.P.C

for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in

Crime No.238 of 2013 of Chityal Police Station, Nalgonda

registered for the offences under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (for short "the Act"), 290, 323, 506 IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and heard learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent-

State. Notice sent to the second respondent who is the de facto

complainant returned with an endorsement as "the person died".

Perused the material record.

3. The second respondent lodged a complaint against the

petitioners alleging that on 29.09.2013 at about 8.30 pm when he

was going returning from the agricultural well to his house, on the

way at Chakalimadugu (morri), the petitioners keeping in view of

old panchayat with regard to Dappula Panchayat of Bonala festival 2 ASR,J crlp_15915_2013

abused him by stating as "MADHIGA LANJAKODAKA NEE

GUDDA BALISINDA, BOSIDEKE" and beat him with hands.

They also threatened him to kill him if he speaks more and abused

him in most filthy language. At that time one Avula Lingaswamy

and Laggoni Krishnaswamy witnessed the incident. The said

complaint was registered by the Station House Officer, Chityal

Police Station as crime No.238 of 2013 for the aforesaid offences.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed this petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

allegations, prima facie, do not constitute the alleged offences and

the alleged incident was not occurred in a place within public view.

Thereby, the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 (x) of the

Act are not attracted and therefore, he prayed to allow the petition

and quash the proceedings.

5. Per contra, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the

petition and submits that the allegations of the complaint constitute

the alleged offence and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

                                             3                                  ASR,J
                                                                     crlp_15915_2013

6. After hearing the submissions of both the counsel and

perusing the material on record, the question that would arise for

consideration is, whether there are any justifiable grounds to allow

the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings?

7. In Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by the

Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para Nos.7 and 10 as under:

7. Section 3 sub-section (1) sub-section (x) of the 1989 Act is reproduced as under:

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. -

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheuled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-

xxx xxx xxx intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"

10. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in any place but within public view", which means that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the person is not present.

8. In State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal1 the Apex court at

para Nos.102 and 103 of the judgment 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

1 (1992) Suppl.1 SCC P.335 4 ASR,J crlp_15915_2013

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:

(1) 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;

(2) 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;

(3) 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;

(4) 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;

(5) 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;

(6) 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;

(7) 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.

                                         5                                 ASR,J
                                                                crlp_15915_2013

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

9. Keeping the above principles laid down by the Apex Court

in view, coming to the facts of the present case, it is alleged by the

second respondent that on the day of incident, he was returning

from agricultural well to his house, on the way reaching Chakali

madugu in the outskirts of village, the petitioners keeping in view

of old panchayat with regard to Dappula panchayat by taking caste

name abused him in filthy language. The incident was witnessed

by two persons whose names were also mentioned. But the learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that there were no street lights

in the village and there is no possibility to witness the alleged

incident by anybody. To prove the same, he has filed

certificate issued by Additional Assistant Engineer,

Operation:A.P.C.P.D.C.L.,Chityala and also certificate issued by

Secretary of Grampanchayat, Sunkanpally. A perusal of the

documents filed by the petitioners would show that there are street

lights from Sunkanapally Village to Gundrampally till the house of 6 ASR,J crlp_15915_2013

the second respondent and there were no street lights line from the

second respondent's house to Chakalimadugu. Apart from this,

there are no specific allegations as to which of the accused has

abused the second respondent in filthy language and who has

beaten him with hands. Apart from that the presence of

independent witnesses is also doubtful and thereby, the alleged

intentional insult cannot be said to have uttered in a place within

public view. The allegations of the complaint would disclose that

the basic ingredients of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act

are missing in the complaint. Therefore, when the basic

ingredients of the offence that the petitioners alleged to have

intentionally insulted or intimidated the second respondent with an

intention to humiliate him in public view are totally missing in the

allegations of the complaint and in the facts and circumstances,

permitting the said complaint to continue and compel the

petitioners to face rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally

unjustifiable leading to abuse of process of law.

10. For the foregoing reasons, on applying the ratio of settled

principles of law stated supra to the facts of the present case, in my 7 ASR,J crlp_15915_2013

considered opinion, the facts of the case squarely falls within the

parameters of Bhajanlal's case supra. Therefore, it is a fit case to

exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings.

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

proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in Crime No.238

of 2013 of Chityal Police Station, Nalgonda District, are hereby

quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

                                          ____________________
                                          A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

23.08.2022
Nvl
 8             ASR,J
    crlp_15915_2013