Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chundi Balaji Dayal, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 October, 2024
APHC010389762022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5853/2022
Between:
CHUNDI BALAJI DAYAL, S/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, OCC APSRTC EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.303, SRI FORTUNE
HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, CNG PETROL BUNK ROAD,
RAMAVARAPPADU, VIJAYAWADA.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI.
2. KUNUMURI ARUNA, S/O.VENKATA SURYA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT
41 YEARS, OCC APSRTC EMPLOYEE, R/O.BILLAPADU, GUDIVADA,
KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. V SESHA KUMARI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1071 of 2021 on the file of the Court of 1 in short 'Cr.P.C.' 2 Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada for the offence under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code, 18602.
2. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
a) Respondent No.2 herein has been working as a Conductor at APSRTC, Gudivada Depot, since nine years. On 27.01.2020, on completion of her duty, at about 10.15 hours, on the instructions of L.W.4 - Anne Siva Sankara Rao, who is the Controller at RTC Depot, Gudivada, she along with went the Petitioner/Accused, the-then Depot Manager of APSRTC, Gudivada Depot.
Then, the Petitioner stated that he received a complaint against her and L.W.2 - Kare Krishna Prasad, who is the Driver of the bus, as they had not stopped the bus at Gangur Bus Stop. On that, the driver of the bus stated that the bus was full of passengers and as such, he could not stop the bus. Respondent No.2 stated that she went to back for giving tickets to the passengers by that time.
b) On that, the Petitioner/Accused stated that it was not right on her part, abused her saying "Evari Bochu Peekataniki Venukaku Vellavu", kicked the chair and also had thrown a book over her. The Petitioner came to Respondent No.2, pulled the S.R.book and wrote something on it and further abused her in an unparliamentary language.
c) As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the Petitioner and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.24 of 2020 on the file of Gudivada II Town Police Station for the offence under Section 509 IPC. The Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the Petitioner, which was numbered as C.C.No.1071 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal 2 in short 'I.P.C.' 3 Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada for the alleged offence.
d) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the case against him.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
3. Heard Sri G.Sailochan, learned counsel representing Ms.V.Sesha Kumari, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri V.Apparao, learned counsel representing Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the words alleged to have been uttered by the Petitioner are not with an intention and in fact, there is no relationship between the parties and they are employer and employee. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are false and the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case as he reprimanded Respondent No.2 on her negligence in performing her duties. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 509 IPC against the Petitioner and prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Dr.Prabal Pal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Another 3 and High Court of Delhi in Varun Bhatia Vs. State and Another4 and would 3 C.R.R.No.2070 of 2019 with CRAN 1 of 2020, dated 30.06.2022 4 Crl.Rev.P.1032/2018, dated 28.08.2023 4 submit that, in the back drop of the authorities, the present case does not fall under the purview of Section 509 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner which would attract the alleged offence. It is submitted that the matter requires elaborate trial since the Police, after due investigation filed charge sheet and as stated by the witnesses, there are words uttered by the Petitioner, which cannot even be spelt. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Petition. Point for Determination
6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.1071 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada?
7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These 5 powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
8. It is alleged against the Petitioner that on 27.01.2020, at about 10.15 hours, he being the-then Depot Manager of APSRTC, Gudivada Depot called Respondent No.2, who is the Conductor and L.W.2 - Kare Krishna Prasad, who is the Driver of the bus bearing Regn.No.AP 16 TF 6579 on that particular day, and stated that he received a complaint against them alleging that they had not stopped the bus at Gangur Bus Stop. When Respondent No.2 tried to give explanation, the Petitioner/Accused by raising his voice, abused her saying "Evari Bochu Peekataniki Venukaku Vellavu", kicked the chair and also had thrown a book over her. The Petitioner came to Respondent No.2, pulled the S.R.book and wrote something on it and further abused her in unparliamentary language.
9. For ready reference, Section 509 IPC is extracted hereunder:
"509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine."
10. While contending that there are no ingredients to attract the alleged offence against the Petitioner, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Varun Bhatia case (supra), wherein, it was held as follows:
"In the present case, the complainant and the accused were in the capacity of employee and superior officer respectively. There is no mention apart from a single word that the accused had called her dirty woman, since they were having dispute which is apparent from a number of e-mails shared by them wherein he being her boss and continuously asking her to attend meetings and office. She was neither attending the meetings nor coming to office on 6 time nor complying with any of her duties as she was required to do."
(emphasis supplied)
11. In Dr.Prabal Pal case (supra), which is relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it was held as under:
"Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, in this context has relied upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and Another reported in (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 600.
Section 95 of the Indian Penal code says nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it intended to cause or it is known to be likely to cause any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Accordingly unless the words allegedly uttered by petitioner is known to court, it is not possible for court to adjudicate, whether alleged "bad language" and or "unparliementary language" and /or "abusive language" is protected under section 95 of the code or not.
Then again what is a woman's modesty. In state of Punjab Vs. Major Singh reported in AIR 1967 SC 63 it was held that the essence of woman's modesty is her sex. Accordingly unless the words allegedly uttered by the petitioner is expressed it is not possible for a court to come to a conclusion whether such utterings have outraged her modesty or not."
(emphasis supplied)
12. A bare perusal of the charge sheet, in the instant case, would reveal that, Police after examination of the witnesses, having found that the Petitioner/Accused uttered some unparliamentary words against Respondent No.2 and thereby insulted her modesty, filed charge sheet against him for the alleged offence. The words used by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.2, which are mentioned in the charge sheet, cannot even be spelt. As there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, are not helpful to the case of the Petitioner.
7
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there are specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused, which have to be decided during the course of trial and at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter of trial for disclosing the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner and there are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against him and hence, the petition deserves dismissal.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:24.10.2024 Dinesh 8 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.5853 of 2022 Dt.24.10.2024 Dinesh