Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 857 (AP)

Dommalapaty Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-12-23

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 299 of 2020 registered by the Station House Officer, Mudivedu, Chittoor District, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 & 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 7.5 cents in survey No. 758 of Pusavaripalli Village, Kurabalakota Mandal in Chittoor District and the 2nd petitioner is working under him. The 1st petitioner purchased the said property with his retirement benefits and since its purchase, he has been cultivating the said land. On 18.11.2020 while the petitioners were leveling the subject land, the defacto complainant and others trespassed into the subject land and tried to stop the work by throwing the rocks with the help of JCB into their lands. The petitioners allegedly encroached into the subject land and abused them touching their caste name which constitutes an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the strength of the complainant given by the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant, the above crime was registered and F.I.R. was issued by the respondent-police for the offences referred to above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the caste name of the defacto complainant has to be disclosed in the complaint otherwise, it will not constitute any offence and the police cannot register any case against the petitioners for the offences stated supra. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh and others dated 20.08.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1311/2008 [arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 3743/2007]. He submits that the offence did not take place in the public view as it took place in the house of the defacto complainant and on this ground also the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners. 5. Undoubtedly, the statement of the defacto complainant was recorded by the police and it constitutes the offences as alleged. He submits that the offence did not take place in the public view as it took place in the house of the defacto complainant and on this ground also the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners. 5. Undoubtedly, the statement of the defacto complainant was recorded by the police and it constitutes the offences as alleged. Prima facie, the main contention is that the caste of the petitioners is not disclosed and in fact it is not the case of the 2nd respondent that he belongs to either Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and when he does not belong to either Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe there is no purpose of mentioning the caste in the F.I.R. itself. F.I.R. is only intimation to police about the commission of a cognizable offence and F.I.R. need not contain all minute details. Therefore, on the ground of failure to mention the caste of the petitioners in the F.I.R., the proceedings cannot be quashed against them. 6. The other contention is that the incident took place in the house and in the absence of any details about the persons or third parties, it cannot be treated as a public view and thereby, registration of crime for the alleged offences is illegal and arbitrary and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. For the purpose of convenience, Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are extracted as hereunder: 3. Punishment for offences of atrocities 21. Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe- (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; 8. In the present case, it is not known whether any third party was present at the scene of offence while commission of the offence. Except the fact of failure to mention the details of the persons, who were present at the time of the incident in the F.I.R. which is an information to the police about commission of cognizable offence by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage, as the investigation is at foetus stage. 9. Except the fact of failure to mention the details of the persons, who were present at the time of the incident in the F.I.R. which is an information to the police about commission of cognizable offence by itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings at this stage, as the investigation is at foetus stage. 9. Time and again the Apex Court re-iterated that at the initial stage of the investigation this Court cannot quash the proceedings when the entire material are not before the Court and the investigation is not yet commenced. 10. In State of Orissa V. Saroj Kumar Sahoo : (2005) 13 SCC 540 , the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of Section 482 and held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised by the High Court to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The Apex Court also held that the High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. The Supreme Court also held that there is no hard and fast rule laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. Further, it was also held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 11. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 11. In Kurukshetra University and another V. State of Haryana and another : AIR 1977 SC 2229 , the Supreme Court took a serious view about quashing the proceedings by the High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and observed as follows: "It surprises, us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any Court in pursuance of the F.I.R. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases." 12. In view of the law declared by the Court in the above judgments, it is clear that when the investigation is at foetus stage and this Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, at this stage when the facts are incomplete, hazy, irrespective of the magnitude of law and fact involved in the matter. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Petition, shall stand closed.