Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Pinjari Dowla vs St1Ate Of Ap on 3 December, 2019

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                Criminal Revision Case No.60 of 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 12.12.2018 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganaru, Kurnol District, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 3(i)(s), 3(i)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, "the SCs & STs (POA) Act") along with Sections 323, 355 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC against accused Nos.1, 3 to 5.

Facts relevant to dispose of this Criminal Revision Case may briefly be stated as follows:

The de facto complainant has lodged a report with the Police alleging that on 10.08.2014 accused No.1 went for cooly work of weeding out waste plants in the field of accused No.4. The said fields of accused No.4 are adjacent to the fields of LW.2-Maladasari Venkateswarlu. At about 14.00 hours when the said Venkateswarlu has been attending to agricultural works, accused No.1 went into the fields of said Venkateswarlu along with his bulls yoke and caused damage to the cotton plants in his fields. When Venkateswarlu questioned accused No.1, there were exchange of words between both of them and there was also scuffle between both of them. Accused No.1 in the said scuffle abused M.Venkateswarlu in the name of his caste and also attacked 2 CMR,J.

him with whip. The witnesses who are present there separated them and pacified the issue.

Accused No.2, who came to know about the said incident through accused No.1, grew-wild and on 12.08.2014 at about 6.00 A.M. he went to the hut of M.Venkateswarlu and questioned him as to why he beat his brother. There was an altercation at that time and accused No.2 also abused M.Venkateswarlu in the name of his caste. The witnesses who are present there intervened and pacified the issue. On the same day, accused No.2 again intercepted LW.8- Maladasari Ramalingadu, who is at Vegetable Market at Yemmiganuru town and threatened him and also abused him in the name of his caste. Accused Nos.3 and 4 went to the house of LWs.2 and 4 viz., Maladasari Venkateswarlu and Maladasari Umavathi and picked up a quarrel with LW.2- Maladasari Venkateswarlu. In that quarrel, accused Nos.3 and 4 beat Maladasari Venkateswarlu and LW.4-Maladasari Umavathi with chappals and abused them in the name of their caste as "MALA DASARI LANJALLARA". Accused No.4 also attacked her with a chappal. The report that was lodged by the de facto complainant was registered as a case in Crime No.91 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 323, 355, 506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act.

CMR,J.

After registering the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer investigated the case. On completion of investigation, he has filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 355, 506 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC. However, he did not file charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act on the ground that the certificate issued by LW.11-B. Srinivasulu, Tahsildar, Mantralayam Mandal shows that the victims belong to "Golla Dasari" caste and that it is not a Scheduled Caste and it is only a Backward Classes caste.

After charge-sheet was filed, the complainant filed a protest petition regarding deletion of the offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act in the charge-sheet.

The learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statements of PWs.1 to 5 and held that a prima facie case is made out for the purpose of taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 3(i)(s) and 3(i)(r) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act against accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5. Therefore, he has taken cognizance of the case for the aforesaid offences against the aforesaid accused.

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5 for the offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, the present Criminal Revision Case is 4 CMR,J.

preferred by the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5.

When the case stood posted to 21.11.2019 for hearing of this revision, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court has vacated the interim order of suspension of the order dated 12.12.2018 and posted the matter for hearing to 27.11.2019 under the caption "for orders". The case came up for hearing before this Court today. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners are not evincing any interest to pursue this Criminal Revision Case as repeatedly there is no representation on their behalf.

Therefore, this Court disposing of this Criminal Revision Case after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant.

As can be seen from the record, the F.I.R. was originally registered in Crime No.91 of 2014 of Mantralayam Police Station for the offences under Sections 323, 355, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act. However, at the time of filing charge-sheet after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer deleted the said offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act and filed the charge-sheet only for the offences under Sections 323, 355, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. He did not file charge-sheet for the 5 CMR,J.

offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act only on the sole ground that LW.11-B. Srinviasa Rao, Tahsildar, Mantralayam, issued certificate stating that "Golla Dasari"

community is not a Scheduled Caste and it is a Backward Classes community.

Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant would vehemently contend that there is no such caste called as "Golla Dasari". He has produced a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mantralayam, dated 26.02.2016 wherein it is stated that as per the information sought under the Right to Information Act that there is no such caste called as "Golla Dasari" of Backward Classes community in the list of Backward Class castes issued by the Government. He has also produced the proceedings dated 05.11.2015 issued by the Special Officer-cum-Information Officer, District Backward Classes Welfare Commission, wherein it is answered to the question whether there exists any caste by name "Golla Dasari" in list of Castes in Andhra Pradesh as "NO". Apart from above two documents, showing that no such caste by name "Golla Dasari" is in existence, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also produced a copy of the order passed by this High Court in W.P.No.14706 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019.

A perusal of the said copy of the order dated 06.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.14706 of 2019 reveals that W.P.No.14706 of 6 CMR,J.

2019, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed seeking declaration that the action of the Tahsildar, Mantralayam in issuing the proceedings dated 01.10.2014 in Rc.B.70/2014 as illegal. The High Court held in the said order that as per the proceedings dated 01.10.2014, the Tahsildar, Mantralayam, stated that the 1st petitioner therein belongs to "Golla Dasari" caste and that the learned counsel further submits that as per the proceedings issued by the District Backward Classes Welfare Officer, Kurnool, there is no caste by name "Golla Dasari". Therefore, by virtue of the orders dated 26.02.2016 wherein it is stated that there is no backward class caste in the name of "Golla Dasari", that the claim of the petitioners that they belong to "Mala Dasari"

which is a Scheduled Caste community is not opposed by the Government Pleader. Therefore, the High Court has set aside the proceedings dated 01.10.2014 in Rc.B.70/2014 issued by the Tahsildar, Mantralayam and allowed the Writ Petition.

So, it is now evident that the proceedings dated 01.10.2014 which was issued by the Tahsildar, Mantralayam, on the basis of which the Investigating Officer deleted the offences relating to the SCs & STs (POA) Act and filed the charge-sheet only for the offences under Sections 323, 355, 506 r/w. Sec.34 of IPC are set aside. On the other hand, the documents produced by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein prove that there is no such caste at all called as "Golla Dasari". So, this Court has no hesitation to 7 CMR,J.

hold that the Investigating Officer grossly erred in deleting the offences punishable under the provisions of the SCs & STs (POA) Act while filing the charge-sheet on the basis of the said certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mantralayam. It shows that the investigation is perfunctory and it was not conducted on correct lines with all seriousness that is required to investigate an offence punishable under the provisions of the SCs & STs (POA) Act. At any rate, as the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mantralayam is set aside by the High Court, it is to be held that the 2nd respondent herein belongs to "Mala Dasari" caste which is a Scheduled Caste.

Therefore, the impugned order cannot be found fault with taking cognizance of the case for the offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act also. It is perfectly sustainable under law.

As the impugned order does not suffer from any legal flaw or infirmity warranting interference of this Court, this Criminal Revision Case fails and it lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:03-12-2019.

cs