HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8120 OF 2010 ORDER: Respondent No.2 - de facto complainant approached the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam to prefer a complaint against A-1 to A-4 under the provisions of Section 3 (i) (iv) (v) (vii) and (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). However, the Station House Officer failed to register the same. Thereupon, he filed a private complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam against A-1 to A-4 under Section 3 (i) (iv) (v) (vii) & (ix) of the Act stating that out of grudge, A-1 presented police complaint against him before the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam through A-3 alleging that A-1 gave Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque, to him payable to A-3. The said amount and cheque was allegedly given to him because he was the only elder member to A-3 and that he said to have promised to deposit the same in the postal department in the name of A-3 and he did not do so and he neither repaid the amount nor the interest to A-3. However, the complainant denied that A-1 had ever paid any amount or gave any cheque to him payable to A-3. A-4, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam, called him and his son on 05-04-2006 at about 8-00 P.M. and kept them in the Police Station till 4-00 P.M. on the following day i.e., on 06- 04-2006 unauthorizedly and during that time A-4 highhandedly forced him and his son to execute two promissory notes for Rs.75,000/- each in favour of A-3. He and his son executed the said promissory notes on the threat of false case being foisted against them for the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. A-2 having encroached into his house site, for which he was reprimanded by the elders, and having grudge against the complainant, supported A-1 and A-3 in foisting the criminal case against him with the instigation of A-4 in Crime No.84 of 2008 under Sections 406, 420 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. After hearing the complainant and after perusing the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam referred the case to the D.S.P., Srikakulam on 18-2-2009 for investigation and his report by 12.03.2009. On receipt of the same, the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam had registered the case in Cr.No.38 of 2009 under Section 3 (i) (iv) (v) (vii) & (ix) of the Act read with Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, as per the orders of the learned Magistrate, the D.S.P., Srikakulam himself has investigated the matter by examining eleven witnesses including the complainant and his son and after apprising the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam with the facts of the case and after seeking permission from him referred the case as false and accordingly a final report was filed in the Court. Thereupon, the complainant filed protest petition reiterating the averments of the original complaint and stating that the police without conducting investigation properly referred the case as false. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statements of PWs.1 to 4 and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to a conclusion that there was prima facie case against A- 1( Gorusu Polareddy), A-2 (Koneti Styarao) and A-3 (S.Appalla Raju), who is petitioner herein, as such, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case only against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 3 (i) (iv) (v) (vii) (ix) of the Act and ordered issuance of summons to them. Assailing the said order, A-3,the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to quash the proceedings against him in P.R.C. No.27 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, inter alia, on the following grounds. a) Though the offence is alleged to have taken place on 09-02-2006, the complaint was filed in the year 2009 i.e., after a lapse of three years, assigning no reasons therefor; b) on 9-2-2006, the petitioner, A-3 (the then Station House Officer), was not present in the Police Station and the then Probationary Sub-Inspector, who was on duty as Station House Officer, had advised the complainant to approach the Court since the matter is civil in nature; c) the petitioner, A.3, was only the then Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam at the relevant time and as such, the provisions of the Special Act as mentioned in the complaint are not attracted; d) the complainant has originally arrayed him as A-4 in the private complaint, which was later numbered as P.R.C.No.27 of 2010, since he happened to register the case against him in Crime No. 84 of 2008 under Sections 406, 420 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. on the complaint of Smt.Vijayalakshmi, who was originally arrayed as A-3; e) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam had examined only P.Ws.1 to 4, out of whom PW.1 is the complainant himself, PW.4 is son of the complainant and PWs.2 and 3 viz., Ganapathi and Suryanarayana respectively are related to the complainant by caste and community and basing on their evidence, the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that there was a prima facie case against A-1 to A-3 for the offences under Sections 3 (i) (iv) (v) (vii) (ix) of the Act and accordingly ordered summons to them, erroneously. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the self same grounds as he raised in the grounds of the quash petition and in addition thereto he submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have examined LW.6 - Jogi Venkata Rao, LW.7 - Singarapu Srinivasarao, who alleged to have attested the promissory notes executed by the complainant and his son. Had they been examined, it would have come to light that the said promissory notes were executed by the complainant and his son in the house of L.W.6 -Jogi Venkata Rao and that the said promissory notes were not executed by them in II Town Police Station, Srikakulam, at the behest or threat of the petitioner-A.3. He also contended that the complaint was belated one having been preferred after three years. Therefore, he contends that the respondent-complainant, out of grudge that petitioner-A3 registered Crime No.84 of 2008 against him, has falsely implicated him in P.R.C.No.27 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam. Therefore, the proceedings in P.R.C. No.27 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the respondent-complainant submits that he has already filed counter affidavit in support of Criminal M.P.No.8478 of 2010 to vacate the interim stay granted by this court in Criminal M.P. No.7480 of 2010 and the same may be treated as his written arguments. In paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that petitioner-A3 filed this criminal petition No.8120 of 2010 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in P.R.C. No.27 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam for the offence under Section 3 (i) (iv) (v) (vii) & (ix) of the Act. It is further stated that in the complaint filed by him, the petitioner was shown as A4 and the learned Magistrate after perusing the material evidence and record, referred the matter to II Town Police Station, Srikakulam, which registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2009 on 12.3.2009 for the offence referred supra. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, after investigating the matter submitted his report on 16.6.2009 before the learned Magistrate reporting the case as false. Aggrieved by the same, he filed protest petition before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the case and accordingly the learned Magistrate took the complaint on file on 18.6.2010 and issued summons to the petitioner and two others. Then, petitioner approached this court and obtained interim stay of all further proceedings of the matter including his arrest. It is stated that the summons issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioner is only to attend the court for his prosecution and the petitioner instead of attending before the trial court, approached this court and obtained interim stay as such, the petition is premature. 5. In addition thereto he submits that when he approached the petitioner-A3 who was SHO of the II Town Police Station, Srikakulam at that time, with a complaint against A1 and A2 that A1 had forcibly occupied his agricultural lands and that A2 forcibly encroached into his house site, A3 refused to register a case against them and as such, he had reported the matter to Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, who had instructed his subordinates to take necessary action in the matter. He also approached the then Revenue Minister who also instructed all the concerned. The petitioner-A3, keeping in mind that the respondent- complainant had reported the matter to Superintendent of Police and the Revenue Minister and having developed grudge against him, had instigated and sent Vijaya Lakshmi and her relations numbering 11 to his house, in his absence. When he reached home, petitioner-A3 dragged him into Police van stating that they received three telephonic calls that the respondent-complainant had assaulted Vijaya Lakshmi, and took him to II Town Police Station, Srikakulam along with brother- in- law of Vijay Lakshmi and his three sons. That coming to know of the same, his son reached the Police Station and on his questioning the petitioner-A3 as to why the respondent-complainant was brought to the Police Station, the petitioner- A3 informed him that the respondent- complainant had reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police and the Revenue Minister and as such, he brought him to the Police Station and that if he does not leave the Police Station, he would meet the same fate as his father. After half an hour or so, his son visited the police station again along with caste elders. However, by that time, the petitioner-A3 has already left the Police Station. The Police personnel present in the police station could not furnish the whereabouts of the petitioner-A3 and that he had to remain in the police station till 4.30 on the following day. On the following day, his caste elders again visited the police station and asked petitioner-A3 as to why the respondent- complainant was kept in the police station for such a long time, for which he replied that it is because of the complaint preferred by Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dantha Trinadha Rao, party in person- respondent-complainant. 7. A perusal of the report submitted in Crime No.38 of 2009 of II Town Police Station, Srikakulam shows that LW-2 (Dindu Ramulu) stated in his statement that the respondent-complainant executed promissory notes for Rs.75,000/- each in the police station, whereas it is in the statements of LWs.6 and 7 (Jogi Venkatarao & Singarapu Srinivasarao respectively) that the said promissory notes were executed by the respondent-complainant and his son in the house of LW.6. Further, it is in the statements of LWs.3, 4 and 5 (Sambariki Ganapathi, Sambariki Surayanarayana @ Suribabu and Sambariki Kameswararao @ Kamesu respectively) that they went to the house of the respondent-complainant for settlement of amount that was due to Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi and there an altercation took place, in which, the respondent-complainant assaulted Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi and police arrested respondent-complainant and kept him in Police custody till 4.30 pm next day. That it is in the statement of LW.8 (Kuna Madhusudhana Rao, P.C.651), Police Constable, that he received information from hospital that the respondent-complainant had assaulted Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi. It is found in the statement of LW.9 (Tamarapalli Apparao, retired ASI -574) that respondent-complainant had assaulted Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi when she demanded payment of money that was due to her. 8. It is apparent from the statements of the above persons that there is variation as to the place of execution of the promissory notes by the respondent-complainant and his son. Moreover, the nature of transaction regarding which the promissory notes alleged to have executed is not clearly known as well as the reasons for the disputes between the parties. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that this case falls within the guiding principles as laid down by the Apex Court in entertaining the petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure in quashing the criminal complaint, and that the Criminal complaint/ FIR can be quashed where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint even if they are taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or making out a case against the accused. In this case, it is seen from the order dated 18.06.2010 passed by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner alleged to have abused the complainant in the name of caste stating that “EEMALODINI YEPPUDAINA CHOOSARA VEEDU NAMEEDA SP GARITHO REPORT CHESTUNNADU” and hence summons were issued to the petitioner. Thus, there are contentious issues involved in the matter requiring judicial and/or judicious decision thereon. 9. The respondent-complainant while advancing his arguments in person submitted that when he approached the petitioner-A3 who was SHO of the II Town Police Station, Srikakulam at that time, with a complaint against A1 and A2 that A1 had forcibly occupied his agricultural land and that A2 forcibly encroached into his house site, petitioner-A3 refused to register the case against them, and as such, he had reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam and he also approached the then Revenue Minister in this regard. That the petitioner-A3 keeping the same in view developed a grudge against him and instigated and sent Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi and her relations to his house and created a false case against him that he assaulted the said Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi. 10. So far as the delay/limitation in preferring the compliant is concerned, it is for the trial court to consider and decide the same. 11. In the circumstances, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in PRC No.27 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam and as such, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J -04-2011 DVs/Stp HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8120 OF 2010 -04-2011