THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2221 OF 2006 Date: 15-07-2010 Between Badugu Bhushana Rao …..Petitioner And The State, S.H.O., Nuzvid Police Station, Rural, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and seven others …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2221 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner – complainant filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the orders of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 71 of 2004 dated 17-01-2006, whereby the revision filed by him has been dismissed confirming the orders of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid dated 07-09-2004 passed in C.F No.1216 of 2003. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate stating that he worked as Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Yanamadala from 18-06-1998. A-1 was the then Regional Manager of the Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Vijayawada, A-2 was the then Chief Manager and A-3 was the then Chief Officer of Yanamadala Branch. A-4 was the Clerk and A-5 was the Attender of the same branch. A-6 is the Investigating Officer and A-7 is the present Branch Manager of the said branch. The petitioner alleged that A-1 being a higher officer used to harass him. On 30-03-2000, A-1 visited Yanamadala Branch at about 3.30 PM and at about 4.00 PM, the petitioner asked him as to why he was not provided with a clerk on deputation to attend the yearend work in spite of his repeated requests and reminders since the branch work has enormously increased, yearend statement forms were received too late and one clerk was on sick leave for a long time during March 2000. On that, A-1 flared up and abused the petitioner and insulted him in front of road side of the branch before Chintha Lakshmi Prasad, Chintha Nagendra Rao and others calling upon him by caste as “Mala Lanjakodaka’ and saying that he would see the petitioner’s end and get dismissed from the service. Later, on 31-03-2000, A-1 abused and insulted the petitioner as if he abused on the preceding day over phone at about 8.30 PM from his office. From that day onwards, A-1 began to give false information to the higher authorities and also harassed him physically and mentally. It is further alleged that A-1 instigated and colluded with A-2 to A-7 to give false complaints and information against the petitioner to the higher authorities of the Bank with ulterior motive after obtaining false complaints from the customers of the Bank. A-1 instigated A-2 and A-5 to trespass into the branch on 19-11-2000 in the absence of the petitioner and got tampered and manipulated the branch records. On 20-11-2000, A-1 abruptly directed the petitioner to handover the branch charge to a deputed officer from his office and directed him to work as Assistant Branch Manager in the same branch making the subordinate clerk A-4 as the joint custodian depriving him handling of the joint custody keys. According to the petitioner, A-1 was not vested with the powers to reduce his rank from the Branch Manager to Assistant Branch Manager and that he was forced to work as Assistant Manager in the same branch from 20-12-2000 to 24-11-2000. After falsification of the records and concocted information by A-1 to the higher authorities, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 24- 11-2000 and thereafter he was forced to face the disciplinary proceedings. A-6 reported falsely to the disciplinary authority and gave concocted and false evidence in the enquiry in collusion with A-1 and others. It is further stated by the petitioner that on 01-04-2000, he lodged a police complaint at the Nuzvid Police Station against A-1, but the police did not take any action. Hence the accused should be summoned and proceeded against under Section 3 (1) (viii) (ix) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and Sections 167, 182, 195, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statements of the petitioner – complainant and one Nelapati Venkata Rao and Subba Rao and Chinta Nagendra Rao by the impugned order dated 07-09-2004 dismissed the complaint holding that there is no prima facie case against the accused. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam and the same has also been dismissed. Hence the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the allegations in the complaint and the sworn statement of the petitioner as well as the statement of Chinta Nageswara Rao disclose that A-1 abused the petitioner in the name of his caste and also threatened that he would be dismissed from the post of Branch Manager which prima facie constitutes an offence under Section 3 (1) (viii) (ix) and (x) of the Act. Therefore, the complaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold on the ground that it is filed nearly after three years of the incident. The petitioner – complainant clearly stated that earlier he filed complaint before the police against A-1 but not against A-2 to A-5. Even the sworn statements of the petitioner and of Narendra Rao show that A-1 abused the petitioner in the name of his caste. Another witness Nelapati Venkat Rao stated that when he was present in the chambers of the Regional Manager - A-1, A-1 made a telephone call to Yanamadala branch. He heard A-1 abusing in filthy language and the words “Bastard I will see his end”. But, he has not stated that A-1 abused the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that earlier he lodged complaint against A-1 only before the Nuzvid Police Station but in the private complaint which was filed three years later, he impleaded all the accused. In the original complaint, there is no whisper or any allegation against A-2 to A-5. The learned counsel for the respondent – Bank stated that departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for the lapses committed by him and he was dismissed from service on 30-10-2001, but the same was modified as compulsory retirement by order dated 22-12-2001 by the appellate authority. Questioning the same, a writ petition is filed and the same is pending before this Court. The fact is that during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner has not filed any private complaint but only after his services were terminated he has chosen to file the complaint. Except stating that he filed a report before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural, he has not filed any authentic evidence about his lodging complaint on which basis the crime has been registered by the police speaks which volumes about the authenticity of the petitioner in lodging the complaint. Giving any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causing the public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is an offence under Section 3 (1) (ix) of the Act. Similarly, if intentionally insulting a member or the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in the place of public view is also an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The complaint allegations and the sworn statement shows that A-1 visited the Bank on official duty and insulted and humiliated the petitioner. If that be the case, the lower Court has rightly observed that the petitioner ought to have lodged the complaint immediately either before the police or before the higher authorities. If he has lodged a complaint as stated by him, the Sub-Inspector of Police ought to have taken necessary action by taking the complaint to the notice of the higher authorities of the Police Department, but he has not chosen to take any steps or follow up action. Even if the complaint made by the petitioner on 01-04-2000 is taken to be true, but later when he was dismissed from service, he filed the present complaint which is nothing but to take vengeance against the accused. Further, nothing has been stated against A-2 to A4 about their fabricating the records detriment to the interests of the petitioner to connect them to the offence under Section 3 (1) (viii) (ix) and (x) of the Act. In view of the same, the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The criminal petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 15-07-2010 ks