Arupula Venkatesh vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4940 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8586 OF 2021 AND 2317 OF 2022

COMMON ORDER:

      Heard Mr. Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners in Criminal Petition No.8586 of 2021 and Mr.K.Srikanth,

learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent and learned Public

Prosecutor in Criminal Petition No.2317 of 2022.

2. Criminal Petition No.8586 of 2021 is filed to quash the

proceedings in Spl. Sessions Case No.61 of 2021 on the file of the VI

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Secunderabad. The

petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2. The offences leveled

against the petitioners herein are under Section 506 of Indian Penal

Code and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Criminal

Amendment Act 2015) (for short 'the Act').

3. Likewise, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2317 of 2022

is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.9751 of 2021 on the file of IV

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2nd

respondent herein is the accused No.1 in Crl.P.No. 8586 of 2021.

The offences leveled against the 2nd respondent are under Sections

341, 323, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In

Criminal Petition No.2317 of 2022, the petitioner/de facto

complainant is seeking to withdraw CC No.9751 of 2021, from the

file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,

Hyderabad and transfer the same to the VI Metropolitan Sessions

Court, Secunderabad for trial along with Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021.

4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners in Spl. S.C. No.

61 of 2021 are as follows :

On 01.11.2020 at about 17.20 hours the 2nd respondent called

one Krishnakanth and requested for some money as he was in need of

money. As Krishnakanth asked him to come to his home and collect

money from him, L.W.1 i.e. 2nd respondent herein, went there by

17:24 hours. By the time he reached there, the said Krishnakanth and

petitioner No.1 were quarrelling over their previous enmity. At that

time, Krishnakanth received a phone call from Prem, which was

handed over to the complainant to continue further, who happened to

speak to Prem in Lambadi language. After that when he tried to

enquire about the quarrel, A.1 and A.2 who had made out from his

dialect that he belongs to ST Lambada community, they caught hold

his collar and abused by referring his caste name as "Neekenduku raa

Lambadi Lanja Kodaka" and also threatened him with dire

consequences. They have also taken his photographs and threatened

that they will kill and beat him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P. No. 8586 of 2021

submits that as per the contents of the complaint, the statements of

witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC it is clear that there

was no intention of the petitioners herein to insult the 2nd

respondent/de-facto complainant. There was no public view. The

contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged

against the petitioners herein and the complaint is an abuse of process.

On the complaint lodged by the 1st petitioner herein, Sub-Inspector of

Police, PS-OU, Hyderabad has registered a case in Cr.No. 329 of 2020

on 01.11.2020 against the 2nd respondent, and the said Krishnakanth

and 2 others for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506, 509 read

with Section 34 IPC. On completion of investigation, the

investigating officer has laid charge sheet against them. The same

was taken on file vide CC No. 9751 of 2021. The said facts would

reveal that there are disputes between the Krishnakanth and 1st

petitioner herein. He has also placed reliance on the judgments

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .

6. On the other hand, Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel

for the petitioner would submit that there are specific allegations

against the petitioner herein. They have abused the 2nd respondent by

referring his caste name and insulted him. The defences taken by the

petitioners cannot be considered under Section 482 of Cr.PC.

7. As stated supra, on the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent,

Police, Osmania University, Hyderabad registered a case in Cr.No.

329 of 2020 against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. On

completion of investigation, the investigating officer has laid down

charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The

investigating officer has recorded the statements of the second

respondent as L.W.1 Kondagadapa Krishnakath, statement of Kadari

Suresh as respondent No.2 and Rupavath Mahesh as L.W.3. In the

statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, the second respondent

has narrated all the facts in the complaint. According to him, the

petitioner herein and one Krishnakanth attacked on him, caught hold

of his collar and assaulted him. They have also abused him. He has

not mentioned the presence of 2nd petitioner herein. It is also

relevant to note that in the statement recorded under Section 161

Cr.PC, L.W.3 Kadari Suresh, has also not referred the presence of

the 2nd petitioner herein. Further, he has stated that there was

quarrel between 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent. After five or ten

months, he left the place. Thereafter, they have informed the same to

the police. Thus, the statements of 2nd respondent (L.W.1), L.W.2

and L.W.3 are contradictory. The role played by the 2nd petitioner is

not mentioned by the L.W.2 and L.W.3. It is also relevant that L.W.2

and L.W.3 have not even mentioned the presence of L.W.3.

8. It is also relevant to note that the contents of statements of the

witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC and also contents of

charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act.

9. As per Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, the punishments for

offences of Atrocities :- Whoever, not being a member of a

Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -

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

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view ;

10. The statements of the said witnesses and also contents of the

charge sheet would reveal that there is no public view. There is no

intention or intimidation to insult the 2nd respondent. As stated supra,

at the cost of repetition, L.W.2 and L.W.3 did not even state about the

presence of 2nd petitioner, wife of 1st petitioner. They have only

stated about the quarrel between the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent.

In view of the said discussion, the proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 61 of

2021, pending on the file of VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court,

Secunderabad against 2nd petitioner are quashed in toto. The said

proceedings are quashed against the 1st petitioner insofar as Section 3

(1) (r) (s) of the Act are quashed. However, the contents of complaint

and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC

would reveal that there was quarrel between 1st petitioner and 2nd

respondent and according to them, the 1st petitioner used criminal

force, pushed the 2nd respondent which prima facie constitute the

offence under Section 506 IPC. Therefore, the proceedings may

come under the offence under Section 506 IPC against the 1st

petitioner herein only.

11. In view of the above said discussion, the Criminal Petition No.

8586 of 2021 is allowed in part quashing the proceedings in Spl. S.C.

No. 61 of 2021 against the 2nd petitioner in toto and quashed the said

proceedings against the 1st petitioner insofar as the offence under

Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act. However, proceedings against him for

the offence under Section 506 IPC may go on.

12. With regard to the relief sought in Criminal Petition No. 2317

of 2022 is concerned, as discussed supra, this Court holds that the

proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021 for the offence under Section

506 of IPC may go on against the 1st petitioner for the offence Section

506 of IPC only which is triable by learned Magistrate. Therefore,

the proceedings in Spl. S.C. No. 61 of 2021, pending on the file of VI

Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Court, Secunderabad shall be

withdrawn and transferred to learned IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan

magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad and the same shall be tried along

with proceedings in CC No. 9751 of 2021.

13. With the said directions, both the Criminal Petitions are

disposed of.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

criminal petitions shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 07th June , 2022

Skj.