Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Beema Manemma, 3 Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ... on 21 January, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6576 OF 2013
ORDER:
Heard Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Venkat Sainadh, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. None appears for the de facto complainant/2nd respondent herein.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashment of Crime No.100 of 2013 of M.R.Palli Police Station, Chittoor District, registered against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in the said crime. The 1st petitioner herein is the mother and she is the wife of one late Sri Jagannadham and the petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of the 1st petitioner.
3. The sum and substance of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein is that she belongs to a scheduled caste and she purchased 20 ankanams of house site from the 1st petitioner for a consideration of Rs.1,600/- in the year 1999 and that out of the said extent, the 1st petitioner herein highhandedly occupied an extent of 4 ankanams. It is further alleged that though the complainant questioned the 1st petitioner on a number of occasions earlier, she did not 2 respond and that on 07.04.2013 at about 6-00 p.m., when the de facto complainant questioned the 1st petitioner herein, she abused the de facto complainant in filthy language by referring to her caste. With the said allegations, the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, M.R.Palli Police Station to take action against the 1st petitioner and her children, who are the petitioners 2 to 4 herein. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the present Crime No.100 of 2013 on 19.04.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'). In the present Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are seeking to quash the proceedings.
4. It is contended by Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that the criminal prosecution sought to be launched against the petitioners herein on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant is a patent abuse of process of law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Act. It is argued in elaboration by the learned counsel that the contents of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein do not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that there is no statement in the complaint that the alleged incident took place in the public view. In support of his submissions and 3 contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the following judgements:
(1) Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others1.
(2) Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh2.
5. Per contra, it is strenuously contended by the learned Assistant Special Public Prosecutor, Sri S.Venkat Sainadh, that there is absolutely no abuse of process of law in the prosecution launched against the petitioner and non- mention of the term 'public view' in the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and the said aspect needs to be gone into during the course of trial and adjudication. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only in rarest of rare cases and the instant case does not fall under the said category. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned Public Prosecutor places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others3.
6. The information available before this Court manifestly discloses that in the complaint, the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant stated that though the 1st petitioner sold an extent of 20 ankanams of house site in the 1 (2008) 12 SCC 531 2 (2011) 11 SCC 259 3 S.L.P. (Criminal) No.4931 of 2020 Dated 26.11.2020 4 year 1999, accused No.1 highhandedly occupied an extent of 4 ankanams out of the said extent and on 07.04.2013, when the de facto complainant questioned about the same, accused No.1 abused the de facto complainant in filthy language, touching the caste name. It is also very much evident from a reading of the contents of the complaint that except requesting the police authorities to take action against the petitioners 2 to 4 herein also, the de facto complainant did not make any allegations against the petitioners 2 to 4. In this context, it may be appropriate and apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter II of the Act deals with the offences of atrocities. Section 3 of the Act deals with the punishment for offences of atrocities. The provisions of law which is relevant and germane for the purpose of adjudication of the issue in the present Criminal Petition is 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 intent to humiliate a member of a 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".
7. The above said provisions of law fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah's case (1 supra). In the said reported case, the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court approached the High 5 Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and sought quashment of the proceedings, emanating from Crime No.281 of 2004 of Uppal Police Station, Hyderabad, and the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide orders dated 19.09.2006, dismissed the Criminal Petition. Against the said order of dismissal, the accused therein filed Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to the earlier judgments in the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4, Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary5 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V. Mohd. Sharaful Haque6, quashed the complaint and at paragraph No.6 held 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 4 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 5 (1992) 4 SCC 305 6 (2005) 1 SCC 122 6 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."
8. In the instant case also, a perusal of the complaint made by the 2nd respondent herein shows that necessary ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are conspicuously absent. There is absolutely no statement in the complaint that the alleged incident had taken place within the public view. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the absence of the phrase 'public view' is not fatal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the said contention of the learned Public Prosecutor stands rejected.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (4 supra) at paragraph No.102, held as under:
"(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 FIR 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 7 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."
10. There is absolutely no second opinion with regard to the settled principle of law, as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised very sparingly. In the considered opinion of this Court, the instant case squarely falls under the guideline No.1 laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (4 supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they 8 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. Therefore, in the definite and considered opinion of this Court, this is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. It is also to be noted that in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited's case (3 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court also referred to the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (4 supra).
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on which the learned Public Prosecutor seeks to place reliance, would not render any assistance to the prosecution. It is also required to be noted, at the cost of repetition, that without making any allegations against the petitioners 2 to 4, the 2nd respondent herein made a request in the complaint to take action against them also. In the absence of any necessary ingredients of the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and in view of the findings recorded supra, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned prosecution is a patent abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the Crime No.100 of 2013 of M.R.Palli Police Station, Chittoor District, registered against the petitioners herein.
9
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this case, shall stand closed.
___________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J 21-01-2021 siva 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6576 OF 2013 Date: 21-01-2021 siva