Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 489 (AP)

Kandregula B B Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-07-31

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quash of F.I.R in Crime No.272 of 2020 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. Brief facts of the petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the principal of Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (hereinafter referred to as MJPAPBCWREIS college) of Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam. The 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, is working as a multi-purpose worker in the said college. He lodged a report with the police alleging that when the 2nd respondent and other multi-purpose workers approached the petitioner, who is the principal, on 13.06.2020 at about 12:30 P.M to request him to promote them as attenders in the said college, that the petitioner insulted them in the name of their caste and also abused them in the name of their caste. 4. Therefore, police registered the said report as a case in Crime No.272 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short, 'SCs & STs Act]. The said case is now under investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is the principal of MJPAPBCWREIS college, noticed some irregularities committed by the 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, and other multi-purpose workers in discharge of their duties relating to supply of food in the college etc., in writing to the Secretary of the said college on 09.01.2020 and on 05.06.2020 and as such the 2nd respondent and others bore grudge against the petitioner and they have filed this false report against him and foisted a false case against him and implicated him in the said false case. Therefore, he would submit that in the said facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against him would amount to abuse of process of law and thereby prayed for quash of the F.I.R registered against him. 6. Therefore, he would submit that in the said facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings initiated against him would amount to abuse of process of law and thereby prayed for quash of the F.I.R registered against him. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the criminal petition would submit that a perusal of the contents of the F.I.R prima facie show that when the de facto complainant and others approached the petitioner with a request to promote them as attenders that the petitioner has insulted them in the name of their caste as they belong to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the matter has to be investigated to find out the truth in the said allegations and it cannot be said at this stage that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the said report lodged by the de facto complainant is an abuse of process of law and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, a perusal of the contents of the F.I.R prima facie discloses that the de facto complainant has specifically narrated in his report that when he and other multi-purpose workers approached the petitioner, who is the principal of MJPAPBCWREIS college, to request him to promote them as attenders that he has insulted them in the name of their caste. These allegations made in the F.I.R prima facie constitute an offence punishable under the SCs & STs Act. Though it is contended by the petitioner that as he has earlier complained to the Secretary of MJPAPBCWREIS college against the de facto complainant and other multi-purpose workers regarding irregularities committed by them in discharge of their duties in writing that they bore grudge against him and they have implicated the petitioner in this false case, it is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by this Court. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations made by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner in the F.I.R is to be ascertained during the course of investigation by the investigation officer. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations made by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner in the F.I.R is to be ascertained during the course of investigation by the investigation officer. If at all he finds prima facie evidence against the petitioner in commission of the said offence, he has to file a charge sheet and it is for the trial Court to decide the culpability of the petitioner and the truth of the allegations made against him in the final adjudication of the case after full-fledged trial takes place. Therefore, it cannot be held with certainty at this stage that on account of the fact that the petitioner has complained against the 2nd respondent and other multi-purpose workers to the Secretary of MJPAPBCWREIS college the present case was foisted, without making any thorough enquiry into the said allegations. So, this Court do not see any valid ground warranting interference of this Court to interdict the investigation and to quash the proceedings. 9. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioner that the present report was lodged out of vengeance as he has earlier complained to the Secretary of MJPAPBCWREIS college against the 2nd respondent and other multi-purpose workers, the investigation officer is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and also the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as the offences registered against the petitioner herein are punishable with less than seven years period of imprisonment. The petitioner is at liberty to produce the evidence available with him before the investigation officer to substantiate his version that the present report lodged by the 2nd respondent was on account of vengeance against the petitioner as he complained to the Secretary of MJPAPBCWREIS college against the 2nd respondent and other multi-purpose workers regarding the irregularities committed by them. The Investigation Officer has to focus his attention on the said defence plea and he has to investigate the case in the light of the said defence taken by the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.