Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 904 (AP)

K. Rami Reddy v. State Of A. P.

2004-08-26

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2004
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS quash petition is filed by A. 1 in SC No. 7 of 2004 registered under sections 3 (1) (viii) and 3 (1) (x) of the scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act ), against him and another, on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second respondent. ( 2 ) THE case of the 2nd respondent is that he is a harijan employed in the Nellore district Co-operative Central Bank (the bank) and since he has been taking treatment at Udayagiri for an ailment, on his request he was transferred to Venkatachalam branch of the said bank as per the orders dated 14. 11. 2000. Petitioner and A2, who is the Manager of Venkatachalam Branch, who belong to forward caste community developed hatred towards him, and A. 2 without any rhyme or reason became accustomed to humiliate and insult him by scolding him in the presence of the members of the staff of the bank at Venkatachalam branch, in spite of his request not to humiliate him in the presence of others. For reasons not known to him petitioner and A. 2 withheld his salary for two months and removed his name from the rolls of the bank and thereafter petitioner maliciously lodged a false and frivolous criminal complaint against him and his wife before the SHO, Ayyappa Gudi Police Station, nellore, when he and his wife went to the house of the petitioner with a request to release his salary and so petitioner and A. 2 are liable for punishment under Section 3 (l) (viii) and Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent. ( 4 ) PRINCIPLES governing quashing of complaints are laid down by the Supreme court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, air 1992 SC 605, as per which, if the allegations in the complaint, when taken to be entirely true, do not disclose commission of any offence, or if the allegations therein are so absurd that no ordinary prudent man would believe them to be true, or if it is an abuse of process of law, and the like, a complaint can be quashed. ( 5 ) THE offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 3 (1) (viii) and section 3 (l) (x) of the Act. As per Section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act, if a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a scheduled Tribe, he would be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. The allegation against the petitioner is that he lodged a false case against the 2m respondent in Ayyappa Gudi Police Station and hence is liable to be punished under section 3 (l) (viii) of the Act. Mere lodging. of complaint before the police, or Court, or institution of legal proceedings by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled caste or Tribe against a person who is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe per se would not be an offence under section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act, because by mere assertion of the member of a Scheduled caste or Tribe that the complaint or other legal proceedings initiated against him by a non-member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the complaint or legal proceeding initiated by a non-member of a Scheduled Caste or tribe would not become false or malicious or vexations. An inquiry or investigation or trial has to be held by the concerned officer or Court, and a finding has to be recorded that the complaint or legal proceeding etc. , initiated against a member of a Schedule tribe or Caste is either false or malicious or vexatious and that finding should become final. Then, and then only can a complaint or legal proceeding initiated, be said to be either false, malicious or vexatious. In the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner the Special Court is neither expected to, nor can, decide the question whether the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent and his wife before SHO, Ayyappagudi PS is true or false or is malicious or vexatious. It is for the concerned police and the magistrate to investigate or make an inquiry and give a finding on the truth or otherwise of that complaint. It is for the concerned police and the magistrate to investigate or make an inquiry and give a finding on the truth or otherwise of that complaint. The complaint does not state that the concerned police, before whom the complaint is lodged by the petitioner, gave a finding that complaint is false or vexatious, and that such finding attained finality. So, it cannot but be said that institution of proceedings under Section 3 (l) (viii) of the Act by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner is premature because by Section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act, the parliament did not intend holding of two parallel inquiries i. e. , one by the officer or court before whom the non-member of a scheduled Caste or Tribe institutes a complaint or proceeding and by the Special court on a complaint lodged by the member of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe against the person who instituted the complaint or proceeding against him, by holding an independent enquiry or trial as to whether the complaint or legal proceedings initiated by the non-member against member of a scheduled Caste or Tribe is true or not. In fact the Special Judge would not be having jurisdiction to make such an inquiry also because the proceedings which was initiated by the non-member against the member of a scheduled Caste or Tribe cannot be taken cognizance of by it. As stated earlier the cause of action for instituting a proceedings under Section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act would arise to the 2nd respondent only if the SHO of Ayyappa Gudi Police Station, records a finding that the complaint lodged before him by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent is false and when such finding reaches finality, but not before. Therefore, the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under Section 3 (1) (viii) against the petitioner and committing the same for trial to Sessions, is improper and hence is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under Section 3 (1) (viii) against the petitioner and committing the same for trial to Sessions, is improper and hence is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) THE other offence alleged is under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, as per which intentional insult or intimidation by a non- member of Scheduled Caste or Tribe with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled castes or Scheduled Tribes in any place, within public view, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. The allegations in the complaint do not disclose that the petitioner, at any point of time, either abused or intimidated the 2nd respondent in any place, in public view. Alleged non-drawal of the salary of the 2nd respondent for two months or the alleged removal of the name of 2nd respondent from the rolls of the bank, is not and cannot be an offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Similarly petitioner forwarding the complaints or representations given by A. 2 against the 2nd respondent to police or others is also not an offence under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act. If 2nd respondent felt aggrieved by the alleged withholding or non-drawal of his salary, and the alleged removal of his name by the petitioner, his remedy is elsewhere, but is not by filing a complaint under Section 3 (l) (x)of the Act. ( 7 ) THUS, even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are true, no offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act also is made out against the petitioner, and so the proceedings against the petitioner in SC No. 7 of 2004 are liable to be and hence are quashed. ( 8 ) THUS, the petition is allowed.