Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 868 (AP)

Ravada Naga Raju @ Nagu v. State of A. P.

2024-07-30

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. The present Criminal Petition is filed questioning the orders dated 09.06.2016 passed in R.C.No.06 of 2015 in Crime No.113 of 2014 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram in taking cognizance against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are arrayed as accused No.1 and 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint on 28.10.2014 before the Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram Police Station alleging that one Nagu/A1 and Surendra/A2 in the presence of one Kiran, abused him taking his caste name. Pursuant to the said complaint, a crime was registered vide F.I.R. No.113 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 420, 379, 506 r/w 34IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after completing the investigation, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Rampachodavaram i.e., the investigating officer categorically referred the case as ‘false one’ on 13.06.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant filed a protest petition under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. vide Rc.No.06 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram. The Court below after recording the sworn statements of the 2nd respondent as well as the other witnesses, passed orders on 09.06.2016 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioners herein and other accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the said proceedings against the petitioners. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as leaned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent State. Though notice served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were never involved in any alleged offences as alleged by the 2nd respondent and the lower Court erroneously relied upon the statements of one Matcha Kiran, one Saka Srinivas without comparing the said statements with the statement given by the 2nd respondent i.e., defacto complainant as well as the statement of one Prabhu Das. Neither said Matcha Kiran, Saka Srinivas nor the Prabhu Das are the employees of the petitioners Quarry. The original complaint made to the SHO, dated 14.09.2014 also does not disclose the said names. For the first time, said persons were brought before the Court below and made to speak about the petitioners herein. The Court below should not have believed their version in the light of the inconsistencies between their statement and the statement of the 2nd respondent herein, which shows that the lower Court has not applied its mind and mechanically relied upon the statements given by the said Matcha Kiran and Saka Srinivas, thereby took cognizance of the complaint. Though the police have conducted a detailed investigation and filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. closing the case as false case, the 2nd respondent herein has filed a protest petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C., however, a perusal of the entire contents of the complaint dated 14.09.2014 and the subsequent protest petition shows that the same does not disclose any specific allegations against the petitioners herein except bald allegations. Therefore, prayed to quash the orders dated 09.06.2016 passed in R.C.No.06 of 2015 in Crime No.113 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material on record, the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashing the orders dated 09.06.2016 passed in R.C.No.06 of 2015 in Crime No.113 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram for the offences punishable under Sections 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 6. 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 is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. For better appreciation, Section 506 of IPC as well as Sections 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 1989 [for short the Act] are extracted hereunder : Section 506:- Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc – and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Sec.3. Punishments for offences atrocities.— (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used; 9. In the instant case, on a plain reading of the order dated 09.06.2016, @para 13 learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order observed that on perusal of the sworn statement of the complainant, it is clearly show that A1, A2, A4 disputed with the complaint and abused him in filthy language by touching his caste. They have also threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Matcha Kiran in his sworn statement deposited the same before the Court below and one Saka Srinivas another eye witnesses stated in his sworn statement that A4 abused the complainant by touching his caste name and A1, A2 and A4 threatened him to go out from the premises. Another witness Chilli Prabhu Dasu also stated that A4 abused the complainant by touching his caste name as “Mala Lanja Kodoaka” and pushed the complainant. A1 and A3 also abused the complainant and threatened him. Another witness Chilli Prabhu Dasu also stated that A4 abused the complainant by touching his caste name as “Mala Lanja Kodoaka” and pushed the complainant. A1 and A3 also abused the complainant and threatened him. Accordingly, it is held that the case was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC and ST(POA) Act an 506 IPC against the accused A1, A2 and A4 by following the procedure under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereby directed to give PRC Number to the case and to issue summons to the accused on payment of process. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court the decision dated 04.07.2018, passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh earlier in the Criminal Revision Case No.1310 of 2017 filed by the accused No.4 questing the present impugned orders dated 09.06.2016 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram, wherein this Court set aside the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 in R.C.No.6 of 2015 to the extent of taking cognizance against Accused No.4 and passed the following order : “Even a perusal of sworn statement given by the second respondent also would indicate that when he visited the quarry, he noticed that one Nagaraju was cutting the stones with the help of others. Even there also, there is no reference with regard to the presence of the petitioner herein. However, since the second respondent has taken the stand that he was abused by touching his caste name, he referred the name of the petitioner herein in the subsequent sworn statement, which clearly establishes that with an oblique motive, the second respondent has implicated the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that when the presence of the petitioner was not even deposed by the second respondent either in the complaint or in the protest petition, taking cognizance against him for the aforesaid offences does not arise. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.” 11. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that when the presence of the petitioner was not even deposed by the second respondent either in the complaint or in the protest petition, taking cognizance against him for the aforesaid offences does not arise. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.” 11. As per the contents of the impugned order passed by the court below, except the sworn statement of the complainant, the very allegations are against the accused No.4, stating that one Saka Srinivas another eye witnesses stated in his sworn statement that accused No.4 abused the complainant by touching his caste name and that accused No.4 abused the complainant by touching his caste name as “Mala Lanja Kodaka” and pushed the complainant. Even a perusal of the impugned order does not discloses that the statements given by the defacto complainant and other witnesses, there are no allegations against A1 and A2 that they have abused the defacto complainant by touching his caste name and as per the Caste Certificate produced by the defacto complainant, it is clear that A1 belongs to ‘Bc-D’ community and A2 belongs to Kamma ‘OC’ community, taking advantage of the same, the defacto complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners herein. This Court after observing the material on record quashed the proceedings against the accused No.4 in the Criminal Revision Case No.1310 of 2017 dated 04.07.2018. Even as per the Final Report submitted by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Rampachodavaram, it discloses that due to removal of the complainant from the contract works by the Management of Abhyunnathi Enterprises and kept pending some due amount, as such the complainant bore grudge against the alleged accused and filed the present case with false allegations by taking advantage of his caste. Accordingly, police referred the case as False. However, earlier this Court, upon considering the material on record, has already set aside the impugned order as against the accused No.4. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 against the petitioners are also liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, police referred the case as False. However, earlier this Court, upon considering the material on record, has already set aside the impugned order as against the accused No.4. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 against the petitioners are also liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 09.06.2016 in R.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram in taking cognizance against the petitioners herein/A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.