Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 60 (AP)

Dadi Srinivasa Rao v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-01-12

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[For short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the petitioner/Accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.2042 of 2020 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3 (1)(s) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[For short ‘the PoA Act’]. 2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows: a. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who belongs to SC Mala community has been working as Telugu Lecturer in AMAL College, Anakapalle, since 2000 for which, the Petitioner is the Correspondent. On 24.09.2019, Petitioner in his chambers, abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste, saying “Maala Naa Kodaka Neeku Udyogam Ivvadame Ekkuva Edi Tappu Edi Oppu Ani Maake Chebutaavaa”and thereby insulted him. Petitioner intentionally abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste in the presence of others. b. Petitioner has not granted arrears of salary and arrears of increment to Respondent No.2, thereby causing financial troubles and mental agony. The Petitioner by issuing memos and show-cause notices without any cause to Respondent No.2 and made him not to attend the college for 73 days. With an Order of the Court, Respondent No.2 joined in the college on 05.10.2020. Petitioner abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and insulted him. c. As such, he gave the report to the Police which was registered as a case in Crime No.2402 of 2020. The said crime is sought to be quashed by petitioner/Accused, vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P. 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter with the following averments, in brief: a. Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of SCs and STs, they remain vulnerable and are being subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations, and open and deliberate harassment. On 24.09.2019, when Respondent No.2 visited the Petitioner and made a humble request that it would not be appropriate to send the teachers to Office Superintendent for applying Casual Leaves, the Petitioner, in response, hurled insults, uttering words with abusive un-parliamentary language, by touching the caste in the presence of all people as mentioned in the complaint. Even prior to the date of incident, number of times, Petitioner insulted and humiliated Respondent No.2 with reference to his caste, which is unbearable. Even prior to the date of incident, number of times, Petitioner insulted and humiliated Respondent No.2 with reference to his caste, which is unbearable. b. Respondent No.2 submitted complaints on 05.07.2020, 13.07.2020 to the police. But the police have not registered any case. Hence, he submitted the complaint on 20.07.2020 to the Superintendent of Police. On 27.07.2020, he submitted report to the District Collector. The District Collector referred it to the Superintendent of Police with a request to conduct detailed enquiry and take necessary action. The police instructed him to submit one more complaint. c. In continuation of earlier complaints, he submitted another complaint on 07.10.2020 that is how the present crime has been registered. Such complaint may be treated as part of police records. d. Respondent No.2 further submits that apart from the allegations in the complaint, Petitioner indirectly also abused him in the presence of all on the very same day in college premises and he was granted bail in a case registered against him for the offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. As such, the contention of the Petitioner that false complaint was lodged against him as a revenge to the official proceedings, is imaginary. e. A mistake crept in the first page at second line from bottom relating to the year, which is noted as 2020 instead of 2019 and that cannot be a ground to quash the Criminal case. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded his statement, wherein he categorically stated about the incident happened on 24.09.2019. Trial of the case is still to be held. f. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., Hon’ble High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, which is the function of the trial Judge. g. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 prays for dismissal of the petition and also seeks to vacate the interim direction dated 22.10.2010. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the alleged incident said to have been occurred in the office chamber, which is not a public place. On the face of it, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner to continue the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the alleged incident said to have been occurred in the office chamber, which is not a public place. On the face of it, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner to continue the proceedings. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469. 6. Refuting the said submissions, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 would submit that FIR is not an encyclopedia and that during the course of investigation, several facts may come out. He would also submit that the alleged incident occurred within public view and that there are no grounds to quash the case against the petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also argued on similar lines Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings in Cr.No.2042 of 2020 against the Petitioner/Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3 (1)(s) of the SCs, the STs (POA) Act? Determination by the Court 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Section 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions. To cite a few, State of Haryana & others v. Bhajanlal & others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC at paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others, (2020) 10 SCC 180 at para 57. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Section 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions. To cite a few, State of Haryana & others v. Bhajanlal & others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC at paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others, (2020) 10 SCC 180 at para 57. The limited question that is to be answered in deciding a Section 482 petition seeking a quash is “whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence or not.” 9. In the context of the present case, it has to be seen whether prima facie an offence has been committed under Sections 3 (1)(r) & (s) of the Atrocities Act or not. In Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603, having expounded the law on the Section 482, the Hon’ble Apex Court specifically referred to the position concerning quashes in relation to Atrocities Act, in the following terms; “34. Insofar and inasmuch as interference in cases involving the SC/ST Act is concerned, we may only point out that a 3-Judge Bench of this Court, in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966, has held that the mere fact that the offence is covered under a “special statute” would not inhibit this Court or the High Court from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code, in the terms below: “15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The SC/ST Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the SC/ST Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 16. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the SC/ST Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily civil or private where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the SC/ST Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a “special statute” would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr. P.C.”(emphasis supplied) 10. As such, it is essential to identify the ingredients of the offences as provided in the provisions of the Atrocities Act, in order to appreciate the facts of the present case. Sections 3 (1)(r) & (s) read as follows; “Section 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. (1) 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; ***** 11. Section 3 (1)(r) makes it an offence to intentionally insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in any place within a public view and Section 3 (1)(s) punishes abusing of any member of SC/ST by caste name in any place within a public view. Both these clauses commonly require such insult or intimidation or abuse “in any place within a public view”. Both these clauses commonly require such insult or intimidation or abuse “in any place within a public view”. It is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469, wherein, emphasis is made on the necessity of “public view”, which is a basic ingredient to attract the offence under the Atrocities Act, as follows; “17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21stJanuary, 2016 filed by the I.O., it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Further, in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., Crl. Appeal No.707 of 2020, Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”. 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. 16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting Respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” (emphasis supplied) 13. A perusal of the record shows that this case was lodged as a counterblast to the official proceedings initiated and issued by the Petitioner against Respondent No.2 in the capacity of the Correspondent of the College. Respondent No.2 was suspended due to a Criminal case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. On his suspension, he started to make allegations against the Management on social media by using abusive language. After due correspondence with Respondent No.2, Management has reported to the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education, since he was spoiling the reputation of the college and the college has decided to surrender him to avoid further indiscipline proceedings. The Commissioner has issued proceedings on 31.01.2020, ordered Respondent No.2 to work at Government College, Perumandlapuram and directed the college to relieve him. The Commissioner has issued proceedings on 31.01.2020, ordered Respondent No.2 to work at Government College, Perumandlapuram and directed the college to relieve him. Accordingly, he has been relieved. When he challenged the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court, as per the directions, he was permitted to join in their college on 05.10.2020. 14. It is pertinent to note that, the legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under Section 3 of the Act. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that even if the petitioner/accused might have abused the 2nd Respondent, such abuse by itself and without anything more does not warrant subjecting the Petitioner to face the criminal proceedings, when it fails to satisfy the ingredients in Section 3. A perusal of the complaint would further disclose that the Petitioner alleged to have abused Respondent No.2 in his chamber, which is not within public view. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Respondent No.2, in order to wreak vengeance, made the present complaint and it is apparent that the complaint does not disclose the material facts. Therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2 are manifestly malafide. with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to personal grudges against the petitioner/accused, as a counterblast, to overcome the disciplinary proceedings, which cannot be permitted. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.2042 of 2020. 17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.2042 of 2020 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.