Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 103 (AP)

BHEERAM NARASIMHA REDDY v. STATE OF A. P.

2007-01-31

GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2007
( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition has been filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking to quash the proceedings in SC No. 32 of 2003, on the file of the court of the I Additional Sessions judge, Warangal. ( 2 ) A brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present Criminal Petition are that the two daughters of the complainant-2nd respondent herein are studying in the village school of Rayaparthi village and that the complainant-2nd respondent on coming to know about the fact that the school authorities are not providing food to the children, went to the school to question the same. As the authorities were not available, he returned back. Subsequently, on 6-11-2001, the accused-petitioners herein on coming to know about the same, stated to have came to the shop of the complainant and abused the complainant by saying 'madiga Lanjakodaka' and beat him indiscriminately and threatened him with dire consequences, if he questions about the activities of the accused. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the complainant lodged the complaint before the III Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Warangal, who in turn referred the matter for investigation. The Sub divisional Police Officer (Warangal Rural)stated to have investigated the matter by registering a case in Crime No. 81/2002 of p. S. Rayaparthi, but has filed a final report stating that the complaint is false vide his report dated 31 -12-2002, which was accepted by the Court on 4-4-2003 as no protest petition was filed against the same by the complainant. Later, the learned Magistrate has examined the witnesses and has taken the cognizance of the offence and committed the same to the court of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal, for the charges punishable under sections 3 (x) (i) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1995 (for short "the Act"), and Sections 323 and 504 IPC and the same was numbered as SC No. 32 of 2003. Aggrieved by the same the present is filed. ( 4 ) ON 24-1 -2007 when this matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners was heard. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant was absent. Aggrieved by the same the present is filed. ( 4 ) ON 24-1 -2007 when this matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners was heard. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant was absent. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that a bare reading of the complaint makes it clear that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners to attract the charges under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the Act and Section 323 and 504 IPC. Merely abusing a person by using the name of the caste without intending to insult that person for being a member of such caste, does not attract the charge under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act as such the court below cannot take cognizance of the offence and that even to attract the charge under section 323 there is no material on record and that the complainant has also not made out a case to attract the ingredients of Section 504 ipc. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that the investigation in the said crime was done by the competent authority i. e. Deputy superintendent of Police as stipulated under rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, (for short "the Rules") and as the investigating officer has submitted a final report stating that the case is false and the court below having accepted the same, ought not to have again taken cognizance of the same. Learned counsel also submitted that no protest petition was filed by the complainant against the final report filed by Police stating that the case is false. ( 7 ) THIS Court on the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as against final report filed by the Police, no protest petition was filed by the complainant, allowed the criminal petition and quashed the impugned proceedings. However, immediately after dictating the order, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant appeared before the Court and submitted that the petitioners have misrepresented before this Court that no protest petition was filed by the complainant against the final report filed by the Police. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that protest petition was filed before the Court below. Under those circumstances, the un-signed order was re-called and the matter was posted for further hearing on 31 -1-2007 by calling for the records. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that protest petition was filed before the Court below. Under those circumstances, the un-signed order was re-called and the matter was posted for further hearing on 31 -1-2007 by calling for the records. ( 8 ) TODAY the matter is taken up for hearing and heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised by him when the matter was heard on earlier occasion. But learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant submitted that after coming to know about the filing of the Police report stating that it is a false case, the complainant filed a protest petition and pursuant to which the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses was recorded by the learned magistrate and since the offence is one triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. It is also stated that the Sessions Court has framed charges and a schedule was also fixed to proceed with the matter, but could not proceed with the matter, as the records in the matter was transmitted to this Court for consideration in this case. ( 10 ) IN the grounds of the petition filed along with this petition, it is stated that the respondent-complainant has not filed any protest petition, which itself is false as this court verified from the records called for and found a protest petition, which in fact was filed against the final report filed by the Police. ( 11 ) COMING to the averments of the complaint and the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses, inasmuch as there are specific overt acts attributed to petitioners, which are sufficient to be treated as prima facie case, this Court is of the view that the matter has to be proceeded with. The main allegation that the present case is filed after a lapse of 7 months and as a counter blast to the case filed by the accused No. 3 in crime No. 96/2001 forthe offence under Section 353 IPC of PS Rayaparthy, wherein the complainant was remanded to the judicial custody, are all matters which are to be considered during the course of trial. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances, the criminal petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. .