Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1544 (AP)

BUDAPAP v. STATE OF A. P.

2006-12-08

P.LAKSHMANA REDDY

body2006
( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 of criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 16 of 2004 of Hindupur rural Police Station, Ananthapur District, against the petitioners. ( 2 ) RELEVANT facts, in brief, are as follows:-The 2nd respondent herein gave a report before the Police alleging that on 16-3-2004 at 5. 30 p. m. when he was at Amen Hotel at Check post in Thummakunta village, the petitioners 1 to 7 herein went there abusing him and beat him with brooms, chappals, hands and legs and further abused him in his caste name as he belong to Harijana caste. On the said allegations the police registered the same as a case in Crime No. 16 of 2004 of Hindupur rural Police Station for the offence punishable undersection 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act' ). ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED of the same, the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as A-1 to A-7 in the said crime, filed the present petition contending that the 5th petitioner herein is the ward member of 7th ward, Thummakunta Gram Panchayat hindupur Mandal, Ananthapur District and that on 16-3-2004 around 4. 30 p. m. , the 5th petitioner in the process of executing formation of road around burial ground in Thummakunta village, got the shrub growth removed and burnt, and while she was doing so, the adjacent land owners i. e. one Nagamani and three others, who are the followers of 2nd respondent herein, and the 2nd respondent also joined them there and abused her and further beat on her head with a stone and caused bleeding injury and she lodged a report with the Police and the Police registered the same as a case in Crime No. 22 of 2004 of Hindupur Rural police Station for the offence under Section 324 r/w. 34 I. P. C. at about 8. 45 p. m. and that in order to act as a counter-blast, the 2nd respondent herein filed a false report and it was registered at 10. 45 p. m. and that in order to act as a counter-blast, the 2nd respondent herein filed a false report and it was registered at 10. 00 p. m. in the Police station on the same day and that it is a clear abuse of process of law and that even if the allegations mentioned in the report of the 2nd respondent are taken as true, the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act do not attract and that the other allegations do not constitute any cognizable offence. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No. 16 of 2004 of Hindupur Rural police Station are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) DURING the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the petition. He mainly contended that reading of the report given by the 2nd respondent clearly discloses that the dispute was in respect of some Panchayat contract work and in that contract the 2nd respondent is aggrieved for not getting the contract work, and therefore, the provisions of section 3 (1) (x) of the Act do not attract even if the allegations mentioned in the report are taken as true on its face value. He further submitted that admittedly a case has been registered against the 2nd respondent in the same police station on a report given by the ward member of Thummakunta Gram panchayat (5th petitioner herein, who is a woman)and the said crime is registered for the offence under Section 324 r/w. 34 I. P. C. , which is a cognizable offence and if the present report is considered in the light of the said facts, it is clear that the present report is filed in order to act as a counter blast to the report given by the 5th petitioner herein in which the 2nd respondent herein is shown as one of the accused and that it is a clear abuse of process of law. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation as to who abused him in the name of his caste and that only an omnibus allegation is made against all the accused, out of which some of them are women and that it is improbable to say that all the accused in chorus uttered the words touching the caste of the 2nd respondent and under such circumstances the case cannot be registered for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and that the registration of crime is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon adecision of this Court in Gara Yesobu v. State of A. P. , wherein my learned brother Justice C. Y. Somayajulu held that when the charge is bald as to who among 66 persons uttered the offending words and their overt acts, it is not possible to believe that all the accused in chorus could have uttered the same words at the same time and that prima facie prosecution on such allegations for the offence under the Act is a clear abuse of process of law. The learned judge quashed the proceedings in P. R. C. No. 9 of 2003 against all the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and directed the Magistrate to convert p. R. C. No. 9 of 2003 to a C. C. for the other offences punishable under Sections 143 and 379 IPC. The learned counsel forthe petitioners also relied upon another Division Bench decision of this Court in Kalasika Prashanta kumar v. State of A. P. , wherein the Division bench of this Court held that in order to attract the provisions of the Act, it is not enough if it is shown that the victim girl was a member of a Scheduled Caste and that the offence should have been committed on the ground that the victim was a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and that merely because the victim was the member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be said that the offence alleged to have been committed on her because she was a member of the scheduled caste. The learned counsel forthe petitioners also relied upon another decision of the single Judge of this Court in Criminal petition No. 610 of 2004. dt. 30-4-2004 (Billa parama Reddy and another v. The State of A. P. and others), wherein my learned brother justicet. Ch. Surya Rao observed that hurling the abusive words in the name of the caste per se will not attract the offence as defined under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and that the abusive words shall be used intentionally so as to humiliate a person who belongs to Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel forthe petitioners submitted that the dispute in this case arose in connection with the contract work of laying a road in the Panchayat and in that connection there arose some quarrel and in that quarrel, 5th petitioner herein received bleeding injury in respect of which a crime was also registered for the offence under Section 324 r/w. 34 IPC, wherein the 2nd respondent herein is figured as an accused, and therefore, the dispute does not in any way relating to the caste of the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent wanted to misuse the said provisions of the Act to act as a counter blast to the report given by the 5th petitioner herein, who is a woman ward member of Thummakunta Gram Panchayat and who received bleeding injury on her head, and therefore, the proceedings in Crime No. 16 of 2004 of Hindupur. Rural Police Station are liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that as seen from the report, there is a clear allegation that the 2nd respondent herein was abused stating that "maadiga NAA KODAKA CONTRACT PANI neekendukura" and the said abusive words attract the provisions contained in the Act. ( 6 ) THE points that arise for determination in this petition are; (1) Whether the proceedings in Crime no. 16 of 2004 of Hindupur Rural police Station against the petitioners/a-1 to A-7 are liable to be quashed? (2) To what result? ( 7 ) POINT No. 1 :- As this is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the report of the 2nd respondent cannot be gone into at this stage. (2) To what result? ( 7 ) POINT No. 1 :- As this is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the report of the 2nd respondent cannot be gone into at this stage. While exercising the discretion under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , the Court should considerthe allegations mentioned in the First information Report and if assumed them to be true, any case is made out as alleged or not. The allegations mentioned in the First information Report shall have to be considered on its face value to know whether any case is made out. Here, in the instant case, as seen from the report given by the 2nd respondent on 16-3-2004 at 10. 00 p. m. , when the Village secretary went to the check post, the 2nd respondent herein requested him to entrust the repair wok of burial ground to him, for which, the Village Secretary stated that he would look into the matter and then went away and that at about 5. 30 p. m. while he was at the amen Hotel near Check Post, the petitioners 1 to 7 herein went there and abused him stating that "maadiga Naa Kodaka Contract pani Neekendukuia" and so saying they beat him with brooms, chappals, hands and legs. These allegations are to be seen in the context of the report given by the 5th petitioner herein, which is also registered as a case in Crime no. 22 of 2004 for the offence under Section 324 r/w. 34 IPC. The copy of that report is also filed along with this petition. In that case, it is alleged that on 16-3-2004 at 4. 30 p. m. while the 5th petitioner herein was getting the work done at the burial ground, there arose some exchange of words in connection with the cleaning of bushes and in that quarrel, the 2nd respondent herein beat the 5th petitioner herein with a stone on her head and caused bleeding injury and the others beat her with hands. The time of offence and the place of offence in both the cases are one and the same. So, it is obvious that the whole episode took place in connection with the cleaning of bushes near the burial ground. The time of offence and the place of offence in both the cases are one and the same. So, it is obvious that the whole episode took place in connection with the cleaning of bushes near the burial ground. ( 8 ) AS seen from Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, intentional insult or intimidation with a view to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view is an essential ingredient to attract the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and that mere hurling of abusive words in the name of the caste does not by itself attract the offence as defined under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act as held by my learned brother Justice T. Ch. Surya Rao in criminal Petition No. 610 of 2004, dt. 30-4-2004. The Division Bench of this court in Kalasika Prashanta Kumar's case (2 supra) also expressed the same view. Though the facts of that case are different, the principle laid down therein is applicable to the facts of this case also. So far as the facts in criminal Petition No. 610 of 2004, they are almost similar to the facts of this case. In that case the incident occurred when the de facto complainant questioned the highhanded attitude of the petitioners therein by ploughing the land in respect of which there was a dispute and in that context, the petitioners therein said to have used some objectionable words. Here also in the context of a dispute regarding the contract work of cleaning the bushes near the burial ground there arose some dispute and not in connection with any humiliation of the caste. In that quarrel both sides said to have exchanged words, and therefore, even if it is assumed that some abuses were made in the name of caste of the 2nd respondent herein, it cannot be said it would attract the provisions contained in section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. In order to attract the said provisions, there must be an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Here, in the instant case, the report does not disclose any such intention on the part of the petitioners to humiliate or insult the caste of the 2nd respondent. In order to attract the said provisions, there must be an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Here, in the instant case, the report does not disclose any such intention on the part of the petitioners to humiliate or insult the caste of the 2nd respondent. Moreover, there is no specific allegation as to who used those abusive words and he simply stated all of them went and abused in the name of his caste. It is a bald allegation as contained in Gara Yesobu and others's case (1 supra ). In that case also bald allegations are made against the accused stating that they used the offending words. On such facts, my learned brother Justice c. Y. Somayajulu held that such allegations do not attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (x)of the Act and that prosecution on such allegations is a clear abuse of process of law. In view of the cited decisions of this Court and considering the context in which the incident took place, I am of the considered view that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act do no attract in this case. The other allegations mentioned in the report of the 2nd respondent attract only non-cognizable offence, for which the Police have no powerto investigate without the permission of the Court. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No. 16 of 2004 of Hindupur rural Police Station are liable to be quashed. However, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to file a private complaint in respect of the offence other than the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Thus, this point is found in favour of the petitioners. ( 9 ) POINT No. 2:- In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in crime No. 16 of 2004 of Hindupur Rural Police station against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed, giving liberty to the 2nd respondent herein to file a private complaint, if any he is so advised, in respect of the offence, other than the offence under section 3 (1) (x)of the Act. .