THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2874 of 2009 Dated: 28 th September, 2010 Between: Ravella Purushotham Naidu ..... Petitioner/A3 AND 1. State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2874 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in P.R.C.No.50 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, so far as he is concerned. 2. Smt.Kavadi Muttu Lakshmi is a resident of Ambedkar Colony, Avilala, Tirupati Rural Mandal. She is a widow. She has a son and a daughter. Her son is studying B.Com., and whereas her daughter got married and residing with her husband. She has been eking out her livelihood by running a tea stall and tiffin centre in front of Central Crime Station, Tirupati. Ravella Purushotham Naidu-petitioner herein spread rumours that he got illicit intimacy with her and made the people to believe the same. Her son-in-law, on coming to know of the rumour, sent her daughter from the matrimonial home on 27.01.2007. She gave warning to the petitioner not to spread such rumours and not to come to her tiffin stall, for which the petitioner-A3 pickup a quarrel with her. P.Chinna Swamy (A4) came in support of the petitioner and joined with him in questioning her character. There was a wordy quarrel between her and the petitioner (A3) and P.Chinnaswamy (A4). The customers in the tiffin centre witnessed the incident. On 28.01.2007 at about 5.45 A.M. she came to her tiffin centre to open it and noticed A1 and A2 under a tree nearby her tiffin centre. When she was adjusting tables and bottles in the tiffin centre, A1 Mavilla Bala Ram and A2 Mavilla Jaya Ram came to the tiffin centre and questioned of her discontinuing intimacy with the petitioner (A3) and P.Chinna Swamy (A4). They allegedly caught hold of her tuft and fisted her on back and scratched on shoulders and neck, and pushed her. When she fell on ground, A1 and A2 broke biscuit bottles and went away. She was admitted in SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, where police recorded her statement. The police, after due investigation, referred the case as a false. Therefore, she presented a complaint before III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance for the offences under Sections 354, 323, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued summons to the accused. Hence, this Criminal Petition by Ravella Purushotam Naidu (A3) with the prayer stated supra. 3. Notice to the 2nd respondent came to be ordered on 29.04.2009. 2nd respondent entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A3 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the sworn statement of the complainant has been taken into consideration in toto, no ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are made out against the petitioners, and therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner/A3 amounts to abuse of process of Court. Learned counsel refers the statement of the complainant recorded by III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, in support of his contention that when A1 and A2 allegedly abused the complainant, the petitioner was not with them and in which case for the abuses hurled by A1 and A2 against the complainant, the petitioner cannot be made responsible. Learned counsel would also contend that even if the entire version of the incident as spoken by the complainant before III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, is accepted, no ingredients of Section 354 IPC have been made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/ complainant supported the order of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, in taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 354, 323, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in issuing summons to the accused. 7. The scope and power of quashing a First Information Report and charge sheet under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is well settled. The said power is exercised by the court to prevent abuse of the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge sheet filed by the police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. A number of decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court on the aforesaid issue wherein the law relating to quashing of a complaint has been succinctly laid down. 8. I n Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi[ (1976) 3 SCC 736], the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate while issuing process against the accused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations made in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused. It was held that the order of Magistrate for issuing process against the accused could be quashed under the following circumstances: " (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. " 9. In Drugs Inspector v. Dr. B. K. Krishna [1981 (2) SCC 454], the Supreme Court held that in a quash proceeding, the High Court has to see whether the allegations made in the complaint petition, if proved, make out a prima facie offence and that the accused has prima facie committed the offence. 10. I n Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi [1983 (1) SCC 1], the Supreme Court held that when on the allegation made in the complaint, a clear case was made out against all the respondents (accused persons), the high Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any offence. 11. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others [(2009) 1 SCC 516], the Supreme Court observed as follows: "15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are: (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue”. 12. Since the sworn statement of the complainant has been copiously referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to extract the same, which reads as hereunder: “I am the complainant herein and resident of Tirupati. I am running a Tiffin stall adjacent to CCS Tirupati for the past 20 years. I belong to Erukula caste which comes under ST. I know A.1 to A.4. A.3 is known to me who came in contact with me for the past 4 or 5 months prior to the incident, since he used to come to my Tiffin centre. A.1 and A.2 are brothers and they are followers of A.3, and A.4 is close associate of A.3. In the year 2007 in the month of 26th January, A.1 and A.2 initially came there and they were standing in front of my shop. On the previous day, A.3 and A.4 came and approached me and asked me to remain as their kept mistress since I lost my husband about 15 years back and further they promised to look after my welfare and also my two children. But I reused to their request. But they challenged with me and accordingly on the next day i.e., on 28.01.2007 A.1 and A.2 came to me and again threatened me to agree for the request of A.3 and A.4 since they are followers of A.3 and A.4. Further they caught hold of my tuft and beat me by assaulting physically. Further they also abused me in the name of my caste by saying that “ERUKALA LAMJAKI INTHA GARVAMENDUKE” and also threatened me with dire consequences. At that time, A.3 and A.4 were also sitting in an auto at a distance whom I have noticed after the incident. Because of the roomer spread over by the accused by creating a story about illicit relationship between me and A.3 and A.4, my son-in-law also started teasing my daughter at her house. After the incident I went to SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati for treatment. Police came there and recorded my statement. A crime was registered as Cr.No.9/2007 under Sections 427, 323 and 324 IPC and U/s.3(X) of SC ST Act. But the police have finally referred the case as false one. Accordingly a notice is served on me by the police. Basing on that I came up with the present private complaint against all the accused. I therefore pray the court to take the case on file and punish the accused according to law.” A plain reading of the above referred statement indicates that it is A1 and A2, who abused the complainant naming her caste. Therefore, prosecution of the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A3, for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, amounts to abuse of process of Court. 13. With regard to the offence under Section 354 IPC, the statement of the complainant is that the petitioner and another (A4) asked her to be their kept-mistress and they would look after her welfare and also her two children. 14. Section 354 IPC (State Amendment) reads as hereunder: “354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than five years, but which shall not be less than two years.” 15. Modesty of a woman is intimately connected with feminity including her sex. Bashfulness is another characteristic of this faminity. Any attempt of assault on this aspect may amount to insulting the modesty. 16. An indecent assault upon a woman is punished under this section. Rape is punished under Section 376; but the offence under this section is of less gravity than rape. A person who is guilty of indecent assault if he intentionally assaults the victim and intends to commit not just an assault but an indecent assault i.e., an assault, which right-minded persons would think it indecent. 17. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the sworn statement of the complainant does not indicate that the petitioner intended to outrage her modesty. Even the circumstances spoken by the complainant are not capable of an inference that the petitioner intended to outrage her modesty. Therefore, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 354 IPC by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. 18. The next question is what is the offence made out against the petitioner (A-3) if the statement of the defacto complainant is considered in toto? Section 506 of the IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 503 defines Criminal Intimidation, which reads as hereunder:- 503: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. 19. The ingredients of Section 503 IPC are: 1.Threatening a person with any injury. (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested 2.The threat must be with intent (i) to cause alarm to that person, or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat” 20. The most important ingredient of the offence of criminal intimidation as defined in Section 503 is that there should be the intention to cause alarm or to cause the person threatened to do any act, which he is not legally bound to do. The section is in two parts. The first part refers to the acts of threatening with injury to the person or reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. The second part refers to the intent with which the threatening is done. 21. The complainant stated before the learned Magistrate in her sworn statement that the petitioner along with another accused approached her and asked her to remain as his kept-mistress and spread the rumor in the village of her illicit relationship with them and as a result, her son-in-law teased her daughter. This piece of evidence prima facie satisfies the ingredients of section 506 (1) IPC. 22. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed setting aside the order of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati in P.R.C.No.50 of 2008 in taking cognizance for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act, 1989 and modifying taking cognizance of the offence under Section 354 IPC to Section 506 (1) I.P.C., so far as the petitioner is concerned. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 28–09-2010 CS/RAR THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2874 of 2009 Dated: 28th September, 2010