Kanchapally Saroja 4 Others vs The State Of Ap., Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 87 Tel

             THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.5616 of 2013
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.133

of 2013 on the file of Bhongir Town Police Station, Nalgonda District

registered against them for the offences under Section 323 IPC and

Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC & ST Act').

2. The case of the petitioners in brief was that the 2nd

respondent lodged a report before the police on 07.05.2013 at 10.00

AM alleging that she was working as a Junior Assistant in Tahsildar

Office, Alair. She was staying in the house of the 1st petitioner at

Pragathi Nagar, Bhongir on rental basis from 04.05.2012. She paid

Rs.1,900/- to the house owner as advance. Later the house owner had

not supplied sufficient water to her, due to which a quarrel took place

twice between them. She informed the house owner in the month of

March itself that she would vacate the house in the month of May

2013. On 03.05.2013 and 05.05.2013 she attended a meeting at

Nalgonda due to which she told her son to vacate the house and

subsequently, she informed the house owner over phone. At that time,

the house owner along with her sons, who were in drunken state, came

there and quarrelled with a demand to pay another two moths rent.

Meanwhile, the Correspondent of Krishnaveni Talent School and his

son also came there and all of them abused her in filthy language Dr.GRR,J

along with house owner in the name of her caste and they also

removed air from the tyres of DCM van and threatened them with dire

consequences. She stated that the said incident occurred on

06.05.2013 at 9.30 PM. Basing on the said report, police registered a

case in Crime No.133 of 2013 for the above offence against the

petitioner herein.

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

Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd

respondent was due of two months rents and electricity bill. Without

prior intimation, the 2nd respondent had vacated the house on

05.05.2012. When the house owner insisted to pay the dues, the 2nd

respondent filed the present case after two days with false allegations

and implicated the landlady, her sons and also the neighbours. The

allegations levelled in the FIR were absurd and they would not prima

facie constitute any offence. As per the version of the 2nd respondent

she was not present at the scene of offence and she was in Nalgonda

attending a meeting on 05.05.2013 and as such she sent her son to

vacate the house, but she alleged in the complaint that the petitioners

abused her and her son and threatened to kill both of them. She

narrated the incident as if she was present at the scene of offence. The

said version of the 2nd respondent would itself prove that the whole

allegations were absurd and no prudent man would come to a

conclusion that an offence took place. The distance between the scene Dr.GRR,J

of offence and the police station was one kilometre, but the delay in

registering the complaint would clearly speak that it was filed with an

ulterior motive to settle her private and personal grudge. The

petitioner Nos.2 and 5 were not residing in Bhongir. The 2nd petitioner

was working in ECIL, Hyderabad and the 5th petitioner was employed

in New Delhi. But, the 2nd respondent implicated them also as if they

were present in Bhongir. No specific allegations were attributed

against the petitioners connecting them to the alleged offence. As

such, the initiation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of

process of law and prayed to allow the petition.

5. Learned Public prosecutor contended that as per the report

given by the 2nd respondent she was present at the time of the incident

and the incident occurred on 06.05.2013 at 9.30 PM. The quarrel took

place on a public road which was a public place and prayed to allow

the investigation to be completed.

6. Perused the record. The complaint given by the 2nd

respondent to the police was full of contradictions. At one place, she

stated that on 03.05.2013 and on 05.04.2013, as there was a meeting

in Nalgonda, she asked her son to bring articles and informed the

house owner over phone, thus, she was not in Nalgonda town and

asked her son to vacate the house and informed the house owner over

phone, but in the next sentence itself she states that meanwhile, the

Correspondent of Krishnaveni Talent School and his son came and

abused her along with the house owner in the name of her caste that Dr.GRR,J

unless she cleared the rental amount and school fee, she would not be

allowed to go and removed the air from the tyres of DCM van and

threatened to kill her and her son. Thus, it was not clear when the

incident took place and whether she was present or absent at the time

of incident. It was also not clear, where they abused her, whether it

was in the house or on the road and whether any other persons

witnessed the incident. In the next sentence she alleges that under fear

of death while calling DSP over phone she ran and the time of

incident was 9.30 PM. The report was dated 06.05.2013. The FIR

would disclose that the incident occurred on 06.05.2013 at 9.30 PM

but was reported in the police station on 07.05.2013 at 10.00 AM.

There was no explanation as to why police not registered the case on

06.05.2013 at 9.30 PM when she ran to the police station under fear of

death. The FIR would disclose that she came to the police station on

07.05.2013 at 10.00 AM. She also implicated the Correspondent of a

School and his son in the said incident that they abused her in the

name of her caste. Thus, the complaint would prima facie disclose

that she was due two months rent to the owners and school fee to the

Correspondent and when they demanded for the same, lodged this

case against them with full of contradictions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra

Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor1 on the aspect that to

attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act, the

2011 (11) SCC 259 Dr.GRR,J

presence of the persons being abused and the abuse being in public

view are essential ingredients and the facts when accepted in their

entirety do not constitute the essential ingredients of the offence, the

High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions were

quashed under its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The

Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Kerala High Court in E.

Krishnan Nayanar v. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan & Others 1997 Crl. L.J. 2036. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are paras 12, 13 and 18. The said paragraphs read as under:

"12. A reading of Section 3 shows that two kinds of insults against the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are made punishable - one as defined under sub-section (ii) and the other as defined under sub-section (x) of the said section. A combined reading of the two sub-sections shows that under section (ii) insult can be caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood, and to cause such insult, the dumping of excreta etc. need not necessarily be done in the presence of the person insulted and whereas under sub-section (x) insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view of the expression "in any place within public view". The words "within public view", in my opinion, are referable only to the person insulted and not to the person who insulted him as the said expression is conspicuously absent in sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of Act 3/1989. By avoiding to use the expression "within public view" in sub-section (ii), the Legislature, I feel, has created two different kinds of offences an insult caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, even in his absence, by dumping excreta etc. in his premises or neighbourhood and an insult by words caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes "within public view" which means at the time of the alleged insult the person insulted must be present as the expression "within public view" indicates or otherwise the Legislature would have avoided the use of the said expression which it Dr.GRR,J

avoided in sub-section (ii) or would have used the expression "in any public place".

13. Insult contemplated under sub-section (ii) is different from the insult contemplated under sub- section (x) as in the former a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes gets insulted by the physical act and whereas is the latter he gets insulted in public view by the words uttered by the wrongdoer for which he must be present at the place.

xxx xxx xxx

18. As stated by me earlier the words used in sub- section (x) are not "in public place", but "within public view" which means 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. In my view, the entire allegations contained in the complaint even if taken to be true do not make out any offence against the petitioner".

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."

In the same judgment, it was also further held that:

"The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein this Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. This Court summarized the following three broad categories where the High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under section 482:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."

8. Hence, considering the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court and as the report is full of contradictions and even if the Dr.GRR,J

complaint was taken on its face value, it would not constitute the

offence alleged whether the said incident occurred within the public

view or not, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

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

proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.133 of 2013 on the

file of Bhongir Town Police Station, Nalgonda District.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J January 07, 2022 KTL