Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 83 (AP)

Uppunuthala Sugunamma v. State of A. P.

2009-02-18

K.C.BHANU

body2009
ORDER This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. seeking to quash the proceedings against her in Crime No.1 of 2006 of Marriguda Police Station, Nalgonda District. 2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that on 24-10-2005 at about 1.00 p.m. when the de facto complainant approached the present petitioner for obtaining her signature for the purpose of applying for the post of Village Health Assistant, the petitioner refused to make her signature and abused the de facto complainant in the name of her caste. As the husband of the de facto complainant was staying at Hyderabad, she could not lodge the complaint immediately and after her husband came to the village, the complaint is lodged and police registered a case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there was abnormally three months delay in lodging the complaint and that when the petitioner lodged a complaint against the husband of the de facto complainant stating that they would implicate her husband in a case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act'), as a counterblast, the present report is lodged and the investigation is taken up by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who is not authorized to conduct investigation and therefore, he prays to quash the complaint. He further states that there was no third person so as to make out an offence under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Act. 5. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the petitioner abused the de facto complainant in the name of her caste. Insulting or intimidating a person belonging to the Schedule Caste in a public place or in pubic view is an offence punishable under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Act. When a prima facie case is made out, it is the statutory duty of the police to register a case and similarly, it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable case. With regard to the delay, a proper explanation has been given in the present complaint. In view of the matter, the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. With regard to the delay, a proper explanation has been given in the present complaint. In view of the matter, the delay in lodging the complaint cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. The other contention that there was no third person present even as per the allegations in the first information report is of no consequence at the stage because basing on the first information report, the police have to verity the truth or otherwise of the complaint and conduct investigation and file the charge sheet. 6. At the threshold, quashing the complaint on the ground that no third person was present in unwarranted. With regard to the allegation that the petitioner's husband lodged a complaint against the husband of the de facto complainant is required to be proved by her. Therefore, basing on the said obligation attached to Section 482 of Cr. P. C., the petition need not be quashed. The other contention is that as per the rules, the Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police has not yet started the investigation, because the Station House Officer when registered a case, the present application is filed and got stayed the matter, as such, no occasion had arisen to the Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police to conduct investigation. When a cognizable office (sic offence) is reported, it is the duty of the SHO to register a case, and therefore on that ground, the proceedings cannot be quashed. In the circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds and the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and the interim stay granted by this Court on 24-1-2006 is hereby vacated.