Telangana High Court
P.Nagamani vs State Telangana on 10 March, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.164 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
seeking to quash the proceedings against her in SC/SPL/92/2021
on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Secunderabad.
02. The case of the complainant/respondent No.2 is that
she is working as Junior Assistant in the office QQSUDA and she
belongs to SC community. On 14.07.2021 and 24.07.2021, the
accused who is Brahmin used filthy language against the
complainant and another in the presence of co-workers. Based
on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, police registered a
case in Cr.No.136 of 2021 for the offences punishable under
sections 509 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r) and Section 3(2) (Va) of
SC and ST (POA) Act.
03. Heard M/s. CMR Velu, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt.D.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State and Sri Manne Venugopal,
learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
according to the complainant, the alleged incident took place on
14.07.2021 and 24.07.2021 and the complainant lodged the
complaint on 25.08.2021 after more than a month without
explaining the reasons for delay in lodging the complaint. Further
the complainant is a Government employee and the distance
from the office to police station is 1.5 kms and as held in Dilawar
Singh v. State of Delhi 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at
Paragraph No.8 held that:
"In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for
the Court is to look for plausible explanation for
the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes
affords opportunity to the complainant to make
deliberation upon the complaint and to make
embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay
defeats the chance of the unsoiled and
untarnished version of the case to be presented
before the Court at the earliest instance. That is
why if there is delay in either coming before the
police or before the Court, the Courts always view
the allegations with suspicion and look for
satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is
formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the
prosecution case."
AIR 2007 SC 3234
05. It is further submitted that the incident took place at
12.11 PM on 24.07.2021 in the office premises. To attract the
provisions of Section 3 (1) (r) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, it is
necessary that it should be in a place where public could view the
incident as per the decision held in Chandra Poojari v. State of
Karnataka , the entire proceedings are quashed and the
petitioner is discharged, wherein in paragraph No.7 it was held
as:
"To attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, it
is necessary that it should be in a place where
public could view the incident. In support of this
argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn my attention to the decision rendered
by this Court in Cr.P.1449/95 between
B.N.Channegowda v. State of Karnataka dated
27.1.1997, wherein this Court has held:
"It is also stated that all these words were
uttered in the private chamber of the petitioner
and not in public view and no other person was
present."
06. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant
has lodged the complaint with a delay of more than one month
and the complainant has not approached any of the superior
officers in the department and the very lodging of the complaint is
1998 Cri.LJ 53 (Kar)
malafide, illegal and abuse of process of SC/ST(POA) and the
process of law and the ingredients of the offence are not made
out and prayed to allow the criminal petition.
07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that
there are specific allegations against the petitioner and prayed to
dismiss the petition.
08. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that
the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint with a delay of
more than one month for which there is no explanation. Further
the petitioner and 2nd respondent are the colleagues in office who
are working together and there is no complaint lodged with the
superiors of the department and there is no public view of the
incident. Further as per the statements of the witnesses, it
appears that the petitioner has not uttered the caste name of the
defacto complainant. In view of the said submissions and
principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
the ingredients of the offence are not made out. Therefore, the
proceedings in SC/SPL/92/2021 on the file of the learned VI
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad are liable to be set
aside.
09. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner-accused in SC/SPL/92/2021
on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Secunderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 10.03.2025
BV
