Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1111 (AP)

Jasthi Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2012-11-08

R.KANTHA RAO

body2012
ORDER : R. Kantha Rao, J. This criminal petition is tiled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.18 of 2010 of Kaloor Police Station, Khammam. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent/State. Though served with notice, none appeared for the second respondent/de facto complainant. 3. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposing of the present criminal petition are that the petitioner lodged a report with the police against the son of the second respondent alleging that he committed theft of mangoes worth Rs. 1,000/- from his mango garden. Basing on his report, the police took the boy Thelluri Suresh to the police station. According to the de facto-complainant, the police humiliated and manhandled her son, due to which, he consumed some pesticide poison and attempted to commit suicide. Alleging as such, the second respondent lodged a report with the police. Basing on her report, the police registered a case against the petitioner under Section 3(i)(ix) and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the FIR. 4. The question arises for determination in this criminal petition is whether the offences under Sections 3(i)(ix) and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the petitioner or whether the FIR is liable to be quashed on the ground that no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner. 5. A bare reading of the FIR clearly shows that the petitioner merely lodged a report with the police alleging commission of theft of mangoes by the son of the second respondent/de facto complainant. The facts mentioned in the FIR do not disclose either the report was lodged by the petitioner on the ground that the son of the de facto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or the police took him to the police station and manhandled him on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. In any event, the boy informed that the police manhandled and humiliated him pursuant to the report lodged by the petitioner. In any event, the boy informed that the police manhandled and humiliated him pursuant to the report lodged by the petitioner. In Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2009) SCC (Crl.) 446, the Supreme Court referring to various earlier judgments held as follows: "According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. 6. The Supreme Court also in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, (1992) SCC (Crl.) 36, that: "Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed." In the said case, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings at the stage of FIR on coming to the conclusion that basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs. and STs. (POA) Act arc absent. 7. In the instant case also, even according to the information allegedly conveyed by the son of the de facto-complainant and basing on the report lodged by the petitioner, the police took the boy to the police station and manhandled him. From the averments of the First Information Report, it is not possible to infer that the petitioner gave report against the son of the de facto-complainant on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. On coming to know about the commission of theft of mangoes, the petitioner gave a report against the son of the de facto-complainant. From the averments of the First Information Report, it is not possible to infer that the petitioner gave report against the son of the de facto-complainant on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. On coming to know about the commission of theft of mangoes, the petitioner gave a report against the son of the de facto-complainant. For mere giving report against the son of "the de facto-complainant alleging commission of theft of mangoes, prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(i)(ix) and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is abuse of process of law since the basic ingredients of the offence alleged under the prevention of atrocities, are not attracted and if the investigation pursuant to the report lodged by the de facto-complainant is allowed to be continued against the petitioner, it would result in miscarriage of justice. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the entire proceedings in Crime No.18 of 2010 of the Kaloor Police Station, Khammam are hereby quashed against the petitioner and the criminal petition is allowed.