Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pecheti Ranga Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 November, 2021
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5162 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking quash of charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Court for S.C and S.T Atrocities Cases, Eluru, West Godavari District.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/ State. Notice issued to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant returned with endorsement „item returned refused‟. Therefore, it is evident that despite service of notice, the 2nd respondent did not turn up for hearing in this Criminal Petition.
The petitioners are A-1 to A-3 in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Court for S.C and S.T Atrocities Cases, Eluru, West Godavari District. The 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, lodged a report with police stating that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and on 12.12.2018 that his marriage with the daughter of A-1 and A-2 was performed and it was an inter-caste marriage. The third accused is the son of A-1 and A-2 and A-1 to A-3 belong to BC-B caste. It is stated that the petitioners, who are A-1 to A-3, have harassed the de facto complainant from the inception of the marriage saying that the de facto complainant belongs to an inferior community. It is stated that on several occasions, the petitioners have insulted the de facto complainant in the name of his caste. According to the de facto complainant the incidents took place inside house. The said report lodged by the de 2 facto complainant was initially registered as a case in Crime 246 of 2019 of Mummidivaram Police Station, East Godavari District, for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short „SC and ST Act‟), which was subsequently transferred to Eluru II Town Police Station. Eventually after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet in the trial Court. The said case is now pending before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even as per the allegations set out in the F.I.R, the alleged insult said to have been made by the petitioners against the de facto complainant in the name of his caste took place only within the four corners of the house and it has not taken place in public view and as such the facts of the case do not constitute any offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act. Therefore, he would pray for quash of the charge sheet filed against the petitioners. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma V. the State of Uttarakhand1 wherein it is held that insult made in the name of the caste which is not in the public view do not constitute any such offence under the provisions of the SC and ST Act.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that there are clear allegations in the F.I.R to show that the petitioners have several times insulted the de facto complainant in the name of his caste and the said allegations clearly constitute an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC and ST Act.
1 (2020) 10 SCC 710 3 In order to appreciate the above rival contentions of both the parties, it is apposite to extract Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act for which the petitioners are being prosecuted and they are read as follows:
Section 3(1)(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;
Section 3(1)(s):
abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
A reading of above Section 3(1)(r) of the SC and ST Act makes it manifest that mere insult or intimidation with an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by itself is not made an offence. Only when the said insult or intimidation is made in any place within the public view, then only it was made an offence. Similarly, Section 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act also makes it manifest that the alleged abuse of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe must be in any place within the public view. So, to attract the offences both under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act, the predominant requirement is that the alleged insult or abuse in the name of the caste with an intention to insult them or humiliate them in the name of their caste shall take place within the public view. It clearly indicates that a mere abuse or insult made in the name of the caste within the four corners of a house, which is not in public view, do not attract the aforesaid offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act.
In fact, the legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been well settled. The Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma V. the State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) had 4 an occasion to deal with the said proposition of law and held at para No.15 as follows:
"As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet."
Therefore, the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court squarely applies to the present facts of the case as the allegation against the petitioners in the present case is also that they have abused the de facto complainant and insulted him in the name of his caste within the four walls of their house.
Even as regards the allegation that one of the petitioners has abused the de facto complainant in the name of his caste and insulted him over phone, the legal position in this regard is also not an undecided question of law and it has been also dealt with by this Court in the case of Potluri Poorna Chandra Prabhakar Rao V. the State of A.P.2 wherein it is held as follows:
"The second ground raised for quashing the proceedings that according to the averments made by the de facto complainant in her complaint that the petitioner herein telephoned her and abused her on the ground of caste. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the averment is taken to be true for the purposes of the case, the offence is not made out. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to section 3 (1)
(x) of the said Act, which reads as under:
"Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."
In the present case, the averment made by the de facto complainant that she was abused on telephone. Therefore, this Court holds that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the said Act are not attracted to the present set of facts." 2 2001 (2) ALD (Cri) 834 5 The ratio laid in the aforesaid judgment of this Court squarely applies to the present facts of the case. In the instant case also, it is alleged that A-1 while talking to A-3 over phone abused the de facto complainant in the name of the caste. As the alleged abuse is not made within the public view as required under the aforesaid Section of law, no offence is made out for the offence punishable under the aforesaid Section of law.
Therefore, in view of the legal position enunciated in the above judgments and as discussed supra, the allegations set out in the F.I.R or in the charge sheet do not constitute any offence against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST Act for which they are being prosecuted now in the trial Court. Therefore, allowing the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioners to be continued in the said facts and circumstances of the case would amount to abuse of process of Court.
Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by way of filing charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Court for S.C and S.T Atrocities Cases, Eluru, to prosecute them for the aforesaid offences are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 01.11.2021 AKN 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5162 of 2021 Date: 01-11-2021 AKN