Telangana High Court

S.Amarender Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 July, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                      CRL.P.No.8016 OF 2013
ORDER:

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

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 in

pursuance of the F.I.R in Cr.No.1213 of 2012 of Banjara Hills

Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable

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

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

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners/A-1 & A-2

and the learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant.

Perused the record.

3. In short, the prosecution case is that on 31.12.2012 at about

11:45 pm, the second respondent lodged a complaint with the

police alleging that on 17.12.2012 at about 01:30 pm, the

petitioners/A-1 and A-2 entered into the working site of

M/s Aditya homes Private Limited, Shaikpet without permission

and when the complainant, who is working as Security Supervisor,

questioned about their arrival, the petitioners abused him by using

his caste name as "Nannu Adugandaniki nevu yevarivi ra madhiga

lanja koduka, neetho yendi ra madiga lanja koduka matladedi".

The petitioners have taken also photographs. Based on the said

complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.1213 of 2012 for

the offence stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present

petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 seeking to quash the

said crime.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the allegations in the complaint do not prima facie

make out any cognizable offence. He further submits that

petitioners/A-1 & A-2 were the members of the A.P. Animal

Husbandry Employees Cooperative Housing Employees

Cooperative Housing Society Limited; that the said society had

purchased Acs.11-00 in Shaikpet Village and made a tentative

layout demarcating 110 plots; that the petitioners were allotted two

plots wherein they have constructed houses and living since 2001;

that in the year 2012 the petitioners were elected as Secretary and

Treasurer of the society and noticed that the then Secretary

Mr.P.Ashwini Kumar Dutt had committed several irregularities and

illegalities in disposing of large extent of society's land i.e.,

common areas earmarked for children park, temple, septic tank

etc., to one M/s Aditya Homes Private Limited and also

misappropriated large amount of society's money. The learned

senior counsel submits that an enquiry was held and it was found

that the earlier society misutilized common areas by wrongly

showing them as plots and making allotment of plots to outsiders

showing them as waitlist members who are near and dear of

Mr.Kota Reddy, Managing Director of M/s Aditya Homes Private

Limited.

5. The learned counsel further submits that on 17.12.2012, few

unsocial elements along with employees of M/s Aditya Home

Private Limited trespassed into house of first petitioner and

threatened them with dire consequences for which the first

petitioner lodged a complaint with police. He further submits that

on 31.12.2012 a false complaint was submitted by the second

respondent for the offence stated above with all false allegations

that the petitioners abused them by taking their caste name and the

same is filed as a counterblast to the complaint filed by the first

respondent on 17.12.2012 against one Mr.Kota Reddy and others

of M/s Aditya Homes Private Limited; that the allegations in the

complaint do not disclose happening of any incident at any place

within public view. He, therefore, prays for quashing the

proceedings in Cr.No.1213 of 2012 registered against the

petitioners/A-1 and A-2. In support of his submissions and

contentions, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the

followings decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

         (i)     HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AND ANOTHER1

         (ii)    GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA
                 PRADESH2

         (iii)   BEEMA MANEMMA v. STATE OF ANDHRA
                 PRADESH3

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent

submits that the allegations in the complaint attract cognizable

offence; that the incident occurred in a place within public view

(2020) 10 SCC 710

(2008) 12 SCC 531

2021 SCC Online AP 2403

and the petitioners abused the second respondent by taking his

caste name. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the

contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that

there are specific allegations in the complaint, prime facie

satisfying the alleged offence and the investigating agency may be

permitted to continue the investigation to bring the case to its

logical conclusion and prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that on 17.12.2012

at about 01:30 pm, the petitioners are alleged to have entered into

the worksite of M/s Aditya Homes Private Limited, Shaikpet

without permission and when the second respondent who was

Security Supervisor asked about their arrival, the petitioners are

alleged to have abused him taking the name of his caste.

Admittedly, the complaint was lodged by the second respondent on

31.12.2012 at 11:45 pm, though the alleged incident occurred on

17.12.2012 at about 01:30 pm. The complaint was filed after a

delay of 14 days and the same creates a suspicion about the

occurrence of the incident as alleged.

8. The provision of law which is relevant for the purpose of

adjudication of the issue in the criminal petition is under Section

3(1)(x) of the Act which stipulates that "whoever, not being a

member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe intentionally

insults or intimidates with intention to humiliate a member of

scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe in any place within public

view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall

not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and

with fine. The above provision of law fell for consideration before

the Hon'ble Apex Court in GORIGE PENTAIAH's (2 supra)

wherein it was held at para 6 of the judgment as under:

"In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he

intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No.3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law".

9. In the instant case also, a perusal of the complaint of the

second respondent shows that the necessary ingredients of the

offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act are conspicuously

missing. There is no specific allegation in the complaint that the

alleged incident had taken in a place within the public view, except

alleging that on arrival of the petitioners to the site, when the

second respondent enquired them, they abused him by taking the

name of his caste.

10. Though it is alleged in the complaint that the incident took

place at 01:30 pm and the petitioners alone were present at the

spot, but the same has not taken in any place within public view.

In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the

offence alleged have been made out. Apart from the above, the

material on record discloses that the petitioner/A-1 is alleged to

have lodged a complaint before Police, Banjara Hills on

17.12.2012 against certain employees of M/s Aditya homes Private

Limited that they have trespassed into his house and threatened

him with dire consequences and abused him in vulgar language.

The complaint was received and GD entry was made by the police.

In fact, the alleged incident had taken place on the same day. The

petitioners specifically allege that the society Secretary misutilized

the common areas earmarked for park and playground and had

shown them wrongly as plots and making allotment of plots to

outsiders showing them as waitlist members who are near and dear

of one Mr.Kota Reddy, Managing Director of M/s Aditya Homes

Private Limited. The petitioners submitted that the present

complaint has been filed only a counterblast to the complaint filed

by the first petitioner on 17.12.2012 against Mr.Kota Reddy.

The learned senior counsel has filed the report of enquiry

conducted under Section 51-A of the A.P. Cooperative Societies

Act, 1964 of the A.P. Animal Husbandry Employees Cooperative

Housing Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited

showing the irregularities committed by the then Secretary of the

society. The said circumstances emanating from the documents

filed by the petitioners would make out that the present complaint

might have been filed with an ulterior motive and to scuttle the

legal proceedings initiated against the Managing Director of

M/s Aditya Homes Private Limited based on enquiry report and the

same cannot be ruled out.

11. In STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL4, 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, justifying an investigation by police officers

1992 SCC (Cri) 426

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".

12. There is absolutely no second opinion with regard to the

settled principle of law as submitted by learned counsel for the

second respondent that the jurisdiction of the court under Section

482 Cr.P.C is required to be exercised very sparingly. However,

the allegations in the complaint do not make out the basic

ingredients of the offence alleged, as the alleged incident had not

taken in a place within the public view and as such, in my

considered opinion, the instant case squarely falls under one of the

parameters of BHAJAN LAL's case (4 supra). Therefore, it is

considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the proceedings against the

petitioner/accused to avoid the abuse of process of law.