Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Ratna Rao vs State Of Ap on 4 December, 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
Crl.P.No.550 of 2019
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Counsel for the petitioner essentially argued two points.
(a) that the offence did not took place in public view (b) that the witnesses who are examined are close relatives of the complainant. Relying upon a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in P.Anand Rao v. State of A.P.1, learned counsel argues that as necessary ingredients for an offence under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not made out, and that the entire complaint should be quashed. He also pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the other offences charged i.e. under Section 341 and 506 IPC are also not made out.
Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand points out that a reading of the charge sheet shows that the incident took place on a main road at Union Chapel Church Junction, and that the son-in law by seeing them started her abusing in the name of caste. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, points out that the offence took place on the main road. He points out that detailed investigation was carried out and a Doctor was also examined as LW.5 and he issued a wound 1 2013 LawSuit (AP) 653 2 certificate about the injuries sustained by the complainant. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor submits that this is not the stage to quash the proceedings.
This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that as per the averments in the charge sheet, it is clear that while they are walking on the road near Union Chapel Church Junction, and the accused had abused the complainant in the name of her caste. List of witnesses filed do not show that all the witnesses are relatives. L.W.3 does not even belong to the same community that the petitioner belongs to. As per LW.3, he is a witness to the incident. Therefore, the statement of the learned counsel that all the witnesses are relatives is belied by the fact that LW.3 does not even belong to the same community to which L.Ws.1 and 2 belongs. Apart from that the Doctor-L.W.5 was also examined, who deposed about the wound certificate issued in respect of LW.1.
The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a case where the incident took place within the house of the complainant. Therefore, learned single Judge opined that when an incident took place within the house of the complainant, it cannot be said that it took place in "public view". The case is clearly distinguishable on the facts on hand.
3
This Court is of the opinion that no ground is made out to quash the proceedings. Many of the issues that are raised by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent are all matters which should be decided during the course of the trial. Hence, this Court holds that there are no merits in the application.
The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 04.12.2019 KLP