Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1368 (TS)

M. Rathnamala v. State of Telangana

2025-11-03

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.361 of 2021 on the file of the Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(i)(l)(r) and 3(i)(l)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 03.04.2021, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she is working as a Secondary Grade Bioscience Teacher at ZPHS (Girls), Medchal. She mentioned that earlier, while proceeding in school, her leg accidentally touched Teacher Rathnamala. Following this, Teachers Rathnamala and Prashanthi allegedly abused her in the name of caste and attacked her by throwing chairs. Another Teacher, Prameela, also supported them. Furthermore, the complainant stated that Rathnamala, Prashanthi, Prameela, along with Srilatha, Usha Kiran, Manjusha, Vijayabarathi, Radhika, and Vijayalakshmi, had been mentally harassing her. Hence, the present crime was registered. 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 13.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted to 16.10.2025 under the caption ‘for orders’. On 17.10.2025 also, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. However, to give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 23.10.2025. On 23.10.2025 also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners or respondent No.2, either in the morning or afternoon session, in physical or virtual mode. To give final opportunity to the parties, the matter was posted to 03.11.2025. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical or virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 4. Heard Mr.Chakradhar Reddy, learned counsel, representing Mr.K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 5. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical or virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 4. Heard Mr.Chakradhar Reddy, learned counsel, representing Mr.K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and respondent No.2 has falsely implicated them in the present crime on the ground that petitioner No.6, who is the Head Master of ZPHS (Girls), Medchal, along with other teachers, had lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 on 26.03.2021, before the District Educational Officer, Medchal. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint with false allegations, implicating the petitioners for offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, though the petitioners never abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 are teachers, who have been discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of the students and higher officials, and there are no complaints against them. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. 6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 are Government Teachers, and petitioner No.6 is the Headmaster of ZPHS (Girls), Medchal. The respondent No.2/de-facto complainant is also working as a Government Teacher in the said school. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 are Government Teachers, and petitioner No.6 is the Headmaster of ZPHS (Girls), Medchal. The respondent No.2/de-facto complainant is also working as a Government Teacher in the said school. The record further discloses that petitioner No.6, along with other teachers, lodged a complaint against respondent No.2/de-facto complainant before the District Educational Officer, Medchal, on 26.03.2021, alleging that respondent No.2 was obstructing their official duties, interfering in administrative matters, provoking students to write unnecessary remarks against the petitioners, and degrading as well as insulting them. The said complaint was received by the District Educational Officer on 27.03.2021. 8. The specific case of the petitioners is that due to the complaint lodged by petitioner No.6 along with other teachers before the District Educational Officer, respondent No.2, with an oblique motive, has filed the present complaint as a counterblast, falsely implicating them for the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act. 9. Upon perusal of the complaint, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of alleged offences. 10. In Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , [ (2023) 17 SCC 615 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must be caste-specific, intentional, and made in a place within public view. Since the alleged abuse occurred in a private setting without reference to caste or public presence, the essential ingredients of the offence were missing. Finding no credible evidence even for the IPC charges under Sections 323 and 504, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process. 11. In Sandhya Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and another , [2025 SCC OnLine All 1512] , the Allahabad High Court observed that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must be caste- specific, intentional, and made in a place within public view. Since the alleged caste- based abuses occurred inside the accused’s house, in the presence of the complainant’s wife and brother-in-law who could not be treated as members of the public the essential ingredient of “public view” was missing. Since the alleged caste- based abuses occurred inside the accused’s house, in the presence of the complainant’s wife and brother-in-law who could not be treated as members of the public the essential ingredient of “public view” was missing. The Court also found that the dispute appeared to arise from institutional management issues rather than caste animosity. Accordingly, it quashed the proceedings under Sections 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act against the applicant while allowing the trial to proceed for the remaining IPC offences. 12. In Karuppudayar v. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy and others , [2025 SCC Online SC 215] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for an offence to fall within Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the alleged act must occur at a place “within public view”, meaning a place where members of the public are capable of witnessing or hearing the alleged abuse. Where the incident occurs within the four walls of an offence or other private space without public presence, the essential ingredients of “public view” is not satisfied. 13. In the present case, the complainant, a teacher, has alleged that her fellow teachers and the principal abused her by referring to her caste within the principal’s office where no members of the public were present at the time. Applying the ratio of Karuppudayar’s case (supra), such a place cannot be regarded as being “within public view”, and prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted. 14. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings in Crime No.361 of 2021, on the file of the Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9, is a clear abuse of the process of law and it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 15. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.361 of 2021 on the file of the Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.