IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.6121 of 2010 Between: Siripur Kowsalya & another … Petitioners And: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.6121 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.42 of 2010 of Navipet PS, Nizamabad district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, police registered a case in Cr.No.42 of 2010 against the petitioners-A.1 & A.2 for the offence under section 3(viii) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). The investigation is pending. According to the complainant, he belongs to the schedule caste. As his marriage was inter-caste, the Tahsildar assigned him Plot No.16 and ever since he is in possession of the same. While so, he alleges that the first petitioner-A.1, who belongs to forward community, has been falsely claiming that the said Plot No.16 belongs to her as the same was assigned in her name by the Government and her son 2nd petitioner-A.2, who is working as Reporter in C-Channel has been supporting his mother-A.1. It is also stated that the first petitioner-A.1 has filed OS No.194 of 2003 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and the same was dismissed. He also alleges that while he was making a construction of two rooms in the said plot, first petitioner got the same stopped through Court and as such he suffers damages to an extent of one lakh. He also alleges that the conduct of the petitioners in filing the suit and stopping construction by the complainant in the said plot amounts to harassment within the meaning of the Act. 4. Admittedly, there was a civil dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, regarding subject plot and both are claiming that it was assigned to them by the Government. When the complainant was making construction, the 2nd petitioner appeared to have filed suit OS No.256 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and obtained injunction restraining the complainant from proceeding with the construction. Simply because the petitioners were unsuccessful in the said suit, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed that filing of the suit itself is an act of harassment. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to be accepted, it may lead to absurd proposition, which is never intended by the Legislature. No doubt, Section 3(1)(viii) of the SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 says that, who ever not being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, shall be punished. Just because, the suit ended in dismissal, it cannot be said that the suit was either false or malicious or vexatious. If that be the case, it leads to a situation where no suit can be instituted at all against a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Even for exposing a genuine cause or claim, every person who feels aggrieved, can resort to civil or criminal proceedings, as the case may be, for ventilating his/her grievance or seeking redressal and such resort to legal proceedings seeking legal remedies by itself can never amount to harassing or abusing. On the other hand, a complaint like the present one is clearly an abuse of process of law and affords a classic example as to how the well intended provisions of a social welfare legislation like SC, ST (POA) Act are sought to be brazenly abused. If the complainant feels that he sustained loss or damage on account of the legal action initiated by the petitioners against him and incurred loss of Rs.1,00,000/-, the remedy lies elsewhere but not to press the provisions of the SC, ST (POA) Act into service. It is not the case of the complainant that he was abused in the name of his caste or ill-treated or harassed, because he belongs to a schedule caste community. It is not the allegation of the complainant that the suit was filed by the petitioners knowing it to be false, malicious or vexations. It is a case where a civil dispute regarding rival claims of ownership over a plot came to be decided by civil Court and it so happened that the petitioners were unsuccessful and their suit was dismissed. Filing of present complaint is a sequel to the dismissal of the suit OS No.256 of 2008 filed by the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore considered eminently fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further investigation in Cr.No.42 of 2010 of Navipet PS of Nizamabad district and they are accordingly quashed. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.12.2010 bss