The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER -7 THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PET ITION No.7 000 of 2022 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 20 1B, on the file of Vl Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

02. The case of the complainanUrespondent No'2 is that he purchased a Tata Safari Vehicle bearing No AP 09 BR 8999 from the petitioners and within a limited span of time the timing beltofthevehiclebrokedownandheincurredrepairingcharges and approached the petitioners requesting to pay the repairing charges or he would return back the same and to re-sell the said vehicle. As such, petitioners kept the vehicle with them for three months for selling it again, but as they did not sell the vehicle' the defacto complainant took back the same and sold it to one Venkateswarlu. The purchaser did not found the jacky and remote of the vehicle and informed the complainant and on request the petitioners promised to send them in two days' but they failed to return. As a result, defacto complainant approached them and the petitioners threatened him and abused him in filthy language in the na9e oi his caste. Basing on which, a complaint 2 WAS lodged by respondent No.2, police registered a case tn Cr.No.335 of 2014 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 and 379 of lndian penal Code (for short tpC,) and Section 3(1)(X) of SC and ST (pOA) Act, 1989 (for short,the Act')

03. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent-State. lnspite of substitute service vide paper publlcation which is filed on record, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. perused the record.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, if the entire allegations in the said charge sheet and FIR are looked into, they do not constitute any offence or the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (X) of the Act, as such initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but abuse of the process of law and as such, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. Further there is no evidence under sections 420, 506 and 37g of IpC and as such the alleged offences are deleted against the accused in the charge sheet itself. 3

05. Coming to the allegation under section 3(1) (X) of the Act, he relied upon a decision held by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Budapap Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein it was held as- I B. As seen from Section 3 (1) (x) ol the Act' intentional insult or intimidation with a view to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view is an essentia/ ingredient to attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act and that mere hurling of abusive words in the name of the caste does not by itself attract the offence as defined under section 3(1) (x) of the Act as held by my learned brother Justice T.Ch.Surya Rao in criminal petition No 61O of 2004, dt. 30-4-2004. The Division Bench of this Couft in Kalasika Prashanta Kumar's case (2 supra) a/so expressed the same view' Though the facts of that case are different' the principle laid down therein is applicabte to the facts ol lhls case a/so So far as the facts in criminal Petition No. 610 of 2004 they are almost stmilar to the facts of this case. tn that case the incident occurred when the de facto complainant questioned the highhanded attitude of the petitioners therein by ploughing the land in respect of which there was a dispute and in that context, the petitioners therein said to have used some oblectionable words Here atso in the context of a dispute regardng the contract work of cleaning the bushes near the burial ground there arose some dispute and not in connection with any humitiation of the caste. ln that quarrel both sdes said to have exchanged words, and therefore. evert il it /s assumed that some abuses were made in lhe name of caste ol the Znd respondent herein. it cannot be said it wauld attract the prowsions contained in section 3(1)(x) of the Act. ln order to atlract the said provisions, there must be an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Schedute Tribe. Here. in the instant case. the repod does not disclose any such intention on the pad of the petitioners to humiliate or insult the caste of the 2nd respondent. Moreover. there is no specific allegation as to who used those abusive words and he smply stated all of them went and abused in the name of h/s caste lt is a bald allegation as contained in Gara Yesobu and others's case (1 supra). ln thal case also bald attegations are made againsl the accused statng that they used the offending words On such facts, my learned brother Justice C.Y Somayajutu held that such atlegations do not attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and that prosecution on such allegations is a clear abuse of process of law ln view of the cited decisrons of this Court and considering the context n which the incident place. I am of the considered view that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act text of the Act do not attracf in this case. 1 2006 Lawsuit IAP) 1412 I l 4 I He also relied upon another decision held in p.Bhaskar Raju - Vs. State of Telangana and others 2, wherein it was held as_ 13 llaving given serious consideration to the issue I am of the view that the contention of the learned Government pleader cannot be countenanced for the simple reason lhe very section itsef is specific that the insult or intimidation should have taken place in pubtic view lt need not be a public place, it could also be a pivate place. The intention of the parliament was very clear that this insult or intimidation shoutd have been caused in a place within the public view. lf it is committed in ztny ptace which is tiot within the public view, it would not be treated as arl offence Otherwise the parliament could have omitted the words within the publtc view. and il trtould be redundant if the contention of lhe tearned Governnle,nl Pleader is accepted. Admittedly, in the instant c.ase. the alleged offence has taken place in the chambers of the Officers where there was no public, and which was not within the public view tt is not even the contention of the 4th respondent that the events were vewed by the pubhc ofi the days mentioned by him in lhe camptaint //r s;65 , situation. tt \ toLtld be very difficult for this Coutl to conclude that even though public did not view the event, yet it has to be treated as a offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the AcL The decision of Madhya pradesh Hiah Court fully covers the case on hand. Hence, prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

06. Learned Assistant public prosecutor submitted that the allegations leveled in the complaint'as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

07. A perusal of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is evident that within public view is an essential ingredient to attract the offence punishable under '? 2015 Lawsuit (Hyd) 288 I I t I Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. The record reveals that the petitioners have been charged for the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and there is no public view as the incident took place in the office of the petitioners. There is no material placed before the Court as per charge sheet and complaint and there is no intention for humiliating the defacto complainant regarding his caste. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners as to who abused the defacto complainant and who used those abusive words against the defacto complainant in the name of caste when the petitioners are three in number. lt is apparent that the incident took place at the office of the petitioners and as per the complaint or charge sheet and there is no public view as to who witnessed the incident. Further the other offences under sections 420, 506 and 379 of IPC were already deleted against the accused in the charge sheet itself. Therefore, in the absence of any material placed before .this Court, there is no point in keeping the proceedings pending against the petitioners and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

08. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2018, on the file of Vl Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, are hereby quashed I I I 6 l\/is,:ellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ctosed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASS|STANT REGTSTRAR . ,/ ..SECTION OFFICER i I To, 1 . The X Additional Chief Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Marredpally Police Station, Hyderabad City District.

3. One CC to Sri. K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies sut/gh d HIGH COURT DATED: 0410,4t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.7OOO of 2022 l-.''l| 14 I (J \o (x f 2 I ,lult M n* DarCl.lE-\) CRIMINAL PETTTION IS ALLOWED @ir h"