Telangana High Court
Raghuram Rao Akkinepally vs Sunitha Thalugula on 5 July, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12043 of 2018
ORDER:
This petition is filed for quashment of S.C.No.17 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) cases at Warangal.
2. The facts in brief, as per the charge sheet are as under:
3. The de-facto complainant, a Ph.D. scholar, belongs to SC (Madiga) community working as a contract Lecturer at K.U. College of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Her husband, LW.2, hails from ST (Lambadi) community and was working as In-charge Principal of Netaji Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Kazipet. The petitioners/A1 and A2 are the professors of K.U. College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and superiors to the de- facto complainant. A1 is a guide to the de-facto complainant in her Ph.D. program.
4. On 29.09.2016 at 11.00 a.m. the de-facto complainant found that she failed in Paper-II Advanced Pharmacology as she secured only 39 marks. At about 11.20 PM she along with her husband, LW.2, approached petitioner No.1/A1 in his chambers in the university. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.2/A2 also 2 came there and on seeing the de-facto complainant, he started laughing at her. When the de-facto complainant questioned petitioner No.2/A2 as to why he was laughing, both the petitioners abused her in most filthy language taking her caste name saying "Mee Maadiga - Lambada Vallaku Saduvu Enduku, Meeku Chaduvu Raadu, Dandaga, Maa Unntha Vargala Vallne, Meeelanti Vaaru Ikkada Bathukuthunnaru, Meeru Eppatikaina Malla Kaalla Daggare Bathukali, Meeku Ph.D., lu enduku, Memu Evvarini Pass Cheyyalo, Evvarini Fail Cheyalo Maaku Theliyada, Adi Maa Chethilo Pani". The petitioners also abused LW.2 in his caste name and threatened the de-facto complainant and her husband with dire consequences that they would kill them and threatened her not to approach for revaluation and wanted her to leave the chamber immediately. The de-facto complainant demanded for revaluation, but the petitioners did not agree and thrown the computer monitor towards LWs.1 and 2 and they hit LW.2. The petitioners attacked LWs.1 and 2, beat LW.2 with hands and the said incident was witnessed by LW.3.
5. On a complaint given by the de-facto complainant, police have registered a case in Crime No.186 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 427, 506 and 452 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the PDPP Act. During the course of 3 investigation, the police have recorded the statements of the de- facto complainant, her husband and other eye witnesses and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet, cognizance of which was taken against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 427, 506 and 452 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this petition.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations levelled against the petitioners do not constitute any offence, even if the contents of the complaint are taken to be true, no criminal liability can be fastened against them. The petitioners are nothing to do with the result of the de-facto complainant and they never insulted or intimidated the de-facto complainant.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that since number of factual issues are involved, they have to be resolved necessarily by way of regular trial and in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be decided.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4
9. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.17 of 2018 can be quashed?
10. It is the case of the Police that at 11.20 AM on 29.09.2016 in the chambers of petitioner No.1-accused No.1, the petitioners, who do not belong to SC/ST community have abused the de-facto complainant, who belong to SC Madiga, in filthy language by taking her caste name saying "Mee Maadiga - Lambada Vallaku Saduvu Enduku, Meeku Chaduvu Raadu, Dandaga, Maa Unntha Vargala Vallne, Meeelanti Vaaru Ikkada Bathukuthunnaru, Meeru Eppatikaina Malla Kaalla Daggare Bathukali, Meeku Ph.D., lu enduku, Memu Evvarini Pass Cheyyalo, Evvarini Fail Cheyalo Maaku Theliyada, Adi Maa Chethilo Pani". Thereby the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act.
11. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act read as under:
"(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
(r) - 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."5
12. The de-facto complainant belongs to SC Madiga, whereas the petitioners do not belong to either SC or ST caste. In order to fasten the liability against the petitioners, the prosecution is expected to allege and prove that the incident was happened "in a place in public view". All public places can be places of public view, however, all private places, on the contrary, cannot be the places of public view, however, a private place can also become a public view depending upon the place, the occasion, number of persons present etc. For instance, if any function is arranged in the residential house and if an incident punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act takes place, then the residential house can also be a place of public view.
13. Now, the question is whether the scene of offence, which is the chambers of A1 in the University can be a place in public view. The chamber of A1 in the university is a place, which is at the control and command of A1. Only authorized persons can get into the chambers of A1. It is not open to the pubic to enter the chamber of A1. What is happening in the chamber of A1 is not visible to the outsiders. The alleged incident took place within the chamber of A1. At the time of alleged incident, except A1, A2 and the de-facto complainant and her husband, no others were present. May be the staff of A1 could be there. 6 However, at the time of alleged incident, there was no gathering of students, staff or any group of people. It is not the case that at that time some seminar or class or some program where people were gathered.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another1 at paragraph 14 held as under:
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is 1 (2020) 10 SCC 710 7 made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." (emphasis in original)"
15. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above authority is applicable to the facts of the case. The place of offence being the chambers of petitioner - accused No.1 is not a place of public view, hence, irrespective of what the petitioners/A1 and A2 stated to have uttered, criminal liability under Section 3 (1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act cannot be fastened against the petitioners/A1 and A2.
16. The other aspect required to be considered is whether the utterances allegedly made by A1 and A2 would amount to intentional utterances with an intention to humiliate the de- facto complainant. The background on which the utterances were allegedly made by A1 are that the de-facto complainant is working as a Ph.D Scholar with A1 and she got less marks in Paper-II Advanced Pharmacology examination and when she has questioned as to how she got the less marks and during the course of discussion, exchange of the words took place and 8 thereby A1 stated to have uttered as "Mee Maadiga - Lambada Vallaku Saduvu Enduku, Meeku Chaduvu Raadu, Dandaga, Maa Unntha Vargala Vallne, Meeelanti Vaaru Ikkada Bathukuthunnaru, Meeru Eppatikaina Malla Kaalla Daggare Bathukali, Meeku Ph.D., lu enduku, Memu Evvarini Pass Cheyyalo, Evvarini Fail Cheyalo Maaku Theliyada, Adi Maa Chethilo Pani".
17. In Hitesh Verma (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 13 held as under:
"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, it the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil Court, or that respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste."
18. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. As per the charge sheet, the de-facto complainant failed in paper - II, Advanced 9 Pharmacology and went to the chambers of accused No.1 and questioned as to why she got less marks. Then exchange of words took place and then the petitioner stated to have uttered taking de-facto complainant' caste name. The petitioners have not voluntarily made the alleged utterances. It is the de-facto complainant and her husband entered into the chamber of A1 and picked up quarrel with the petitioners/A1 and A2. Therefore, the basic issue was that the de-facto complainant secured less marks on which she perhaps suspect A1 is the reason for getting less marks and quarrel took place. Hence, criminal liability under Section 3 (1)(r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act cannot be fastened against the petitioners/A1 and A2.
19. Further, the de-facto complainant is not clear as to which of the accused uttered which word or sentence. It is stated in the complaint and also in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the de-facto complainant that both the accused have abused them in filthy language etc. In order to fasten a criminal liability, the de-facto complainant is expected to specifically allege the overt acts against each of the petitioners so that the Court can examine those overt acts and conclude whether they have committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. 10
20. If the complaint itself is vague without disclosing as to what are the overt acts of each of the accused, it is difficult for the Court to fasten the criminal liability. Therefore, on this count also, the case against the petitioners under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act cannot be proceeded with.
21. However, in respect of other offences i.e., Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, it is stated in the complaint and in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that the petitioners have threatened the de-facto complainant and her husband with dire consequences, beat LW.2, the husband of the de-facto complainant, and abused them in filthy language.
22. Therefore, considering the same, even though the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act cannot be proceeded with on account of the discussion made above, still the petitioners will have to face the trial in respect of other offences.
23. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed in part and the proceedings against the petitioners in so far as the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act in S.C.No.17 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Sessions Judge Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) cases at Warangal are hereby 11 quashed. However, the trial in respect of other offences shall continue as per the procedure.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 05.06.2022 ES