Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Parsa Somaiah And Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By ... on 18 February, 2014
Author: R.Kantha Rao
Bench: R.Kantha Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.118 OF 2011
18-02-2014
Parsa Somaiah and others.Petitioners/A1 to A3
State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another.. Respondents/Defendants
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy
Counsel for Respondent No.1: Addl.Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P., Hyderabad
Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Mohd. Saleem.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.118 OF 2011
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. There is no representation for the second respondent/de facto complainant.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the investigation in Crime No.279 of 2010 of Khanapuram Police Station, Khammam Urban.
The brief facts necessary for considering the Criminal Petition are that the petitioners/A1 to A3 filed a suit in O.S.No.305 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam for declaration of title and injunction in respect of an extent of 0-16 guntas of land in Sy.No.335 situated in Gollagudem village of Khammam District against the de facto complainant. The said suit is pending adjudication before the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam and the de facto complainant is contesting the case by appointing a counsel.
While so, the de facto complainant filed a private complaint before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam, alleging that on 7-9-2010 at about 1530 hours, while the de facto complainant and his people were conducting agricultural operations in the land, the petitioners (A1 to A3) came there with a tractor driven by one Parsa Ramanjaneyulu and tried to plough the land. When the de facto complainant obstructed, the petitioners abused him and his people in the name of their caste and threatened them with dire consequences.
The said case was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police under Section156(3) of Cr.P.C., for investigation. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No. 279 of 2010 came to be registered in Khanapuram Police Station, Khammam Urban. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the investigation in the said crime.
In the instant case admittedly, a civil suit in respect of the land has been pending between the de facto complainant and petitioners and the utterances in the name of caste were allegedly made by the petitioners in connection with the land dispute. Whenever there is a dispute between the parties in relation to the property and a complaint has been made alleging commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Court is under a duty to scrutinize the allegations with great care and circumspection. The reason is; there is every possibility for the accused being implicated in the case on account of civil dispute.
If the Court upon examining the allegations mentioned in the First Information Report/complaint, arrives at the opinion that the allegations made are inherently improbable and if the said allegation prima facie appears to have been made on account of the property dispute between the parties, it has to be extremely cautious before accepting the allegations at their face value.
In the instant case, the utterances which were said to be made clearly indicates that on account of property dispute, the complainant has bent upon involving the petitioners in an offence, which is punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. Even from the allegations mentioned in the First Information Report, the petitioners did not assault the de facto complainant and his people. It is only stated in the complaint that they abused the de facto complainant and his people in the name of their caste..
To attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Mens rea is the essential ingredient. The utterances made in the name of caste should be with an intention to humiliate or intimidate the persons belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe in a place within public view. If in the course of a quarrel took place in the fields the petitioners abused the de facto complainant and his people by using the caste name, the said act by itself in my view does not automatically attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The manner in which the utterances were made must be with an intention to humiliate or intimidate the persons belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe.
From the facts of the present case, it is highly difficult to gather such an intention on the part of the petitioners. Further, the utterances cannot be said to be made in a place within public view. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the incident allegedly mentioned in the complaint is inherently improbable. Further more, even if the entire incident is considered to be true, it does not attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. If the investigation is allowed to continue in a case of this nature, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and ultimately it would result in miscarriage of justice. This is a fit case where the investigation can be quashed by invoking the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the investigation in Crime No.279 of 2010 of Khanapuram Police Station, Khammam Urban is quashed. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
_________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 18-02-2014