HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4562 of 2010 DATE:28.06.2010 Between: Kuruva Maddileti and 2 others …… Petitioners. And: The State of A.P., rep. by its P.P., High Court of A.P., and 3 others. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4562 of 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offences punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, the Act) in P.R.C.No.19 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandikotkur. The respondents 3 and 4 are the defacto-complainants in this case and they gave report to the Midthur police who registered the same as case in Crime No.73 of 2009 and investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet in the lower court. It is alleged that on 01.07.2009 when the 3rd respondent went to house of A-1 and questioned him as to why he gave complaint to the Mandal Development Officer regarding death of her father-in-law, A-1 denied the same and that when the 3rd respondent brought the 4th respondent to the house of A-1 for confronting him, A-1 abused both of them in filthy language touching their caste and questioned them about their propriety in questioning him and insulted them in public view. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the charge sheet does not contain date of offence, time of offence and place of offence and that the charge sheet also does not contain ingredients require for constituting the offence and that the present report was given by the respondents 3 and 4 as a counter blast for the report given by A-1 to Mandal Development Officer about death of father-in-law of the third respondent so that alleged pension of the deceased person would not be disbursed to an impostor by obtaining some thumb impression. The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on M/s. Eicher Tractor Ltd., v. Harihar Singh[1] wherein the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings on the ground that those proceedings were initiated as a counter blast to proceedings initiated by the accused party. In the case on hand, there is no counter case filed by the accused party against the victims herein. In fact report given by the 3rd respondent to the police gives the previous incident of A-1 giving report to Mandal Development Officer as the basis for the dialogue between A-1 and the victims. Hence, it cannot be said that the present case was instituted by the respondents 3 and 4 as counter blast for any other criminal case launched by A-1. 3. In Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2], the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings launched under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act when basic ingredients of offence were missing in the complaint wherein it was not mentioned that the accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the defacto-complainant in a place within public view. That was a case wherein registration of FIR was in question. Whereas in the case on hand, the police after registration of report of the 3rd respondent as FIR, investigated into the same and filed charge sheet in the lower court. Charge sheet includes final report of the police filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate and also its enclosures such as statements of witnesses and documents appended to the said final report. The petitioners filed only copies of FIR and charge sheet/final report in this petition and did not file statements of witness recorded by the investigating officer and documents which are appended to the charge sheet/final report. In the absence of complete investigation record before this Court, it would be doing injustice in case this petition is decided on scuttled charge sheet, a copy of which is appended to this petition. At any rate, FIR as well as charge sheet to the extent placed before this Court allege that the respondents 3 and 4 belong to ‘Madiga’ and ‘Mala’ communities which are Scheduled Castes and that A-1 to A-3 abused them in filthy language uttering their caste names and that A-1 to A-3 thereby insulted them. As per allegations in the charge sheet, apart from the respondents 3 and 4(L.Ws.1 and 2) being the victims, there were six other eye witnesses to the incident who are shown as prosecution witness Nos.3 to 8 in the charge sheet. Thus, the alleged offence took place at a place within the public view. It is not a case like Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai v. Union of India[3] of this Court where the alleged offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act took place in the Chambers of the Officer. Apart from two victims, there were three accused and six other witnesses present at the place where the offence is alleged to have taken place. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act contemplates occurrence of the offence at a place within the public view and not at a public place. The only factual requirement to constitute offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which is absent from the printed charge sheet is about the accused/petitioners not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of entire investigation material before this Court, which material is appended to charge sheet as enclosures, this Court cannot conclude that the said ingredient is absent herein. At any rate, it is nobody’s case that any of A-1 to A-3 belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is a matter to be elicited during trial in the trial court. In the absence of placing the entire investigation record before this Court, the petitioners cannot complain that time of offence, date of offence and place of offence are not mentioned by the prosecution. Thus, this Court does not find any reasons to quash proceedings in P.R.C.No.19 of 2010 in the lower court. 4. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:28.06.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4562 of 2010 Date:28.06.2010 Gk. [1] (2009) ACR 200 Supreme Court of India [2] (2008) ACR 883 Supreme Court of India [3] 2000(5) ALD 566