Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 313 (AP)

Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy v. State Of A. P.

2005-04-01

V.V.S.RAO

body2005
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are accused in Crime No. 238 of 2004 of Town Police station, Narsapuram. On a compliant given by the second respondent on 8-12-204, Sub- inspector of Police registered the said crime under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act, for brevity ). In this petition under Section 482 of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC), the accused Nos. 1 and 2 seek an order for quashing the said crime. This Court while admitting the matter on 28-12-2004 stayed the arrest of the petitioners. When the application filed by the second respondent being Crl. MP No. 205 of 2005 for vacating the said interim order, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, was heard finally and is being disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) THE second respondent (complainant) filed a written complaint alleging as follows. The petitioners and two others obtained signatures and blank promissory notes and judicial stamp papers and the complainant stood as guarantor to the persons who purchased fish feed. When those persons failed to pay the amount, the complainant repaid the said amount. On 7-5-2004, when he approached the accused Nos. 1 and 2 over the petitioners herein, they abused him in filthy language and pressurized him to pay an amount of rs. 32,000/ -. The Accused No. l also filed a suit for a sum of Rs. 5,45,400/- and obtained an order of attachment on 30-10-2004 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 again called the complainant on 26-11-2004 to their shop and intentionally insulted and intimidated the complainant with intention to humiliate him by abusing and calling him by his caste name, as he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Madiga ). On these allegations, he made a compliant on 8-12-2004. The police registered the crime and the case was entrusted to the sub-Divisional Police Officer for investigation. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 moved this Court on 27-12-2004 and obtained interim orders of stay of arrest on 28-12-2004. ( 3 ) APPEARING in support of the petitioners, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel made three submissions. The police registered the crime and the case was entrusted to the sub-Divisional Police Officer for investigation. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 moved this Court on 27-12-2004 and obtained interim orders of stay of arrest on 28-12-2004. ( 3 ) APPEARING in support of the petitioners, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel made three submissions. First, a reading of the compliant given by the complainant, on the face of it, does not disclose commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of the Act. Secondly, even according to the compliant, Accused nos. 1 and 2 allegedly abused the complainant at their shop and therefore the element of abusing and insulting within public view is absent and therefore the prosecution cannot succeed in the case. Lastly, he would urge that as per Rule 7 (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Rules, 1995 (the Rules, for brevity), the Investigating Officer has to complete the investigation in thirty days, which was not done and therefore the delay in investigation prejudicially affects the petitioners giving a cause for them to seek quashing of the complaint. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the second respondent, Mr. K. Chidambaram, contends that the complainant was abused in filthy language by using his caste name at the shop of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in public view and to that effect those persons who are present at the shop also gave statements to the police during the investigation. A reading of the complaint would clearly disclose the commission of offence by the petitioners under Section 3 (1) (x) of the act and therefore this Court may not be inclined to go into the other material at this stage. Secondly, he would urge that the complaint was registered by the police as a cognizable offence on 8-12-2004 and within a short time thereafter on 28-12-2004 the petitioners obtained stay orders from this court and therefore there was every justification for the Investigating Officer in not sending the report as required under rule 7 (2) of the Rules. ( 5 ) THE Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 is intended to prevent commission of offences of atrocities against the persons of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to provide Special Courts for trial of such offences. ( 5 ) THE Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 is intended to prevent commission of offences of atrocities against the persons of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to provide Special Courts for trial of such offences. Section 3 of the Act creates a number of statutory offences against persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes. Of late, there has been increase in number of complaints made by these classes of people to the police and the courts. Whenever the members of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes assert their economic rights in relation to the property they are interested in, social rights regarding accessibility to various goods and services available in the society or claiming their right of access to shops and other public places and political rights to hold their political offices, the immediate reaction of the community at large is subjecting the members belonging to Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes to one of the ignominies enumerated in Section 3 (1) of the Act. ( 6 ) A number of cases under Section 482 of Cr. PC, are being filed for quashing the case at the stage of investigation and/ or at the stage of prosecution before the special Court. Whenever an offence under section 3 (l) (x) of the Act is alleged, one of the submissions is that the alleged insult or intimidation is not in a place within the public view and therefore the case is quashed on that ground. The other usual grounds urged are that the complainant is not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe, that the complaint is filed to harass and to blackmail the accused in relation to a previous dispute and that such a complaint is filed to take vengeance against the accused. An answer to all these grounds, if it is to be in favour of the accused, requires further answers to other questions, as to what happened, when happened, how happened and why it happened. There can be no answer to these questions without there being full evidence before the Court. No one can arrive at a definite conclusion or plausible conclusion based on some hazy and vague material brought by the accused for evaluation by the Court. It would, therefore, be hazardous for this Court to venture into arena of conjecture to find answers. There can be no answer to these questions without there being full evidence before the Court. No one can arrive at a definite conclusion or plausible conclusion based on some hazy and vague material brought by the accused for evaluation by the Court. It would, therefore, be hazardous for this Court to venture into arena of conjecture to find answers. The Court should be cautious not to be swayed by the rhetoric presented by the accused, which is presented more often than not in every case for quashing. ( 7 ) IN this case, the petitioners, who are Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and are alleged to have committed offence on 26-11-2004 at their shop. They contend that the alleged offence was not committed in a place within the public view and therefore no offence is made out. It is therefore necessary to examine the purport of the phrase ". . . . . . . in any place within public view. . . . . . " in section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. ( 8 ) THE term public view is not defined in the Act. In English language public is a term which is used both as a noun as well as an adjective attributing something to a noun. The people in the community at large are compendiously called the public . In contradistinction with the term private , the term public gives different meaning which is concept of plurality. For instance, private purpose is distinguished from public purpose, which means that if some thing is done in the interest of the larger body of community, it is for public purpose. ( 9 ) JN Words and Phrases (Vol. 35 permanent Edition, by West Publishing company) the term "public place" is defined in various ways. A public place is a place where the public has a right to go and be. Public place is one attended by public for business, entertainment or similar reasons. A "public place" which is a place where the public generally are permitted to assemble. In a prosecution for distributing a public assemblage, an instruction was given that a public place is any place at which people assemble, or to which people commonly resort for the purposes of business, amusement, recreation, or other lawful purpose. A "public place" which is a place where the public generally are permitted to assemble. In a prosecution for distributing a public assemblage, an instruction was given that a public place is any place at which people assemble, or to which people commonly resort for the purposes of business, amusement, recreation, or other lawful purpose. ( 10 ) SECTION 12 of the Indian Penal code, 1860, defines the word public as to mean to include any class of the public or any community . Therefore, the phrase in a place within the public view may be taken as a place where ordinarily the public visit for some purpose or other than with uninterrupted regularity though not continuously. Any place where a Government office is located, any market, a place of public entertainment and the like, where people are expected to go and are invited is a place within the public view . An office or an office room where the head of the office sits is also a place within the public view but the private ante chamber of such officer cannot be treated as a place within the public view because except the personal servants of the officer, nobody can enter the private chambers. Similarly, an officer s house is not a place within the public view. If a person opens any shop-be it for selling services or be it for selling feed for prawn culture; opens such a shop with an implied invitation to the public to visit the shop for purchasing the feed sold, such a shop must be given a public character and is certainly a place within public view, ( 11 ) THE Court cannot ignore that the legislature uses the words ". . . in any place within public view. . . " and not the term "public place" or the term only "public view". Therefore, one has to get the meaning of the words "place within the public view". In words and Phrases (Vol. 35a Permanent edition West Publishing Company-2002 cumulative Supplementary Pamphlet, P. 51) the term "in view of the public" was defined as under. When accused exposed himself to a babysitter in his bedroom, he exposed himself to "public view" as required for offense of indecent exposure, since term does not mean a "public place" but "in view of the public". 35a Permanent edition West Publishing Company-2002 cumulative Supplementary Pamphlet, P. 51) the term "in view of the public" was defined as under. When accused exposed himself to a babysitter in his bedroom, he exposed himself to "public view" as required for offense of indecent exposure, since term does not mean a "public place" but "in view of the public". With respect to element of indecent exposure requiring that accused exposed a certain part of his body to public view in an indecent manner, "public view" occurs when the exposure is done in a place and in a manner that is reasonably expected to be viewed by another. ( 12 ) SECTION 2 (a) of the Act defines the term "atrocity" so as to mean an offence punishable under Section 3. The definition of atrocity also would furnish a key to understand every clause of sub-section (1) of Section 3. Here, this Court may refer to the following from the Statement of objects and Reasons appended to the Bill when the same was introduced in the parliament. DESPITE various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. 2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc. , they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests to try to cow them down and terrorize them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled castes persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes and rape of woman belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non- scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary. 3. The term atrocity has not been defined so far. It is considered necessary that not only the term atrocity should be defined but stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishments for committing such atrocities. It is also proposed to enjoining on the States and the Union territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes from being victimized and where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects, gaz. of Ind. , 9-8-1989, Pt. II, Section 2, Ext, p. 11 (No. 33 ). ( 13 ) THE Act, as seen from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, seeks to achieve the purpose of providing stringent measures and punishments for committing atrocities against members belonging to Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes, which atrocities are generally perpetrated when these persons assert their rights, it would be very absurd to think that if a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is insulted or intimidated with an intention to humiliate in a public place where there are no onlookers is not offence, but the same would be offence if any third person other than offender and the victim is present in a place. Such a thin line cannot be drawn while interpreting any of the clauses in Section 3 (1) of the Act which by themselves are atrocities. The moment a member belonging to Scheduled Caste/ scheduled Tribe complains that the accused has insulted or intimidated him or her by using caste name, an atrocity is committed and that has to be dealt with in accordance with law provided in the Act as well as crpc. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the submission that whenever offence under section 3 (l) (x) of the Act is purportedly committed in a secluded place or in a place where there is no "public" offence is not made out. This Court, however, hastens to add that this aspect of the matter has to be decided by the Criminal Court conducting trial and it cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal case at the stage of investigation or prosecution. ( 14 ) IN this case, a perusal of the complaint given by the second respondent dated 7-12-2004 (but signed on 8-12-2004) would show that on 26-11-2004, the second respondent was summoned by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to their shop where they committed offence ander Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. A prawn feed shop by no stretch of imagination can be treated as not a place within the public view. In that view of the matter, the decisions cited by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner in J. Sumana v. Endluri Aseerwadamma, 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 252 (AP), (a case of offence in the Chamber of Assistant Director, sericulture, Buja, Nellore) and K. Padma peddy v. Station House Officer, Bellampalli, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 421 (AP), (a case of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act in the Chambers of Municipal Commissioner) are of no help to the petitioner. In this case, this Court stayed the arrest of the petitioners and that may be a probable reason for delay in completion of investigation. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in abdul Rehman Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701 , delay by itself cannot be a ground for quashing a criminal complaint or a crime under investigation. Therefore, this court finds both the submissions without any merit. ( 15 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, the criminal petition is dismissed.