IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1188 OF 2004 Between: Penumtsa Rama Raju ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1188 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”), is directed against the order, dated 01.03.2004, in Crl.MP.No.255 of 2003 in S.C.No.2 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the Session’s Case on the ground that there is no material on record to indicate the prima facie case against him for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (Viii) and (iX) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act’), was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein/accused lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, IV Town Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam, against the complainant and others stating that they abused one Yesuratnam taking his caste name, who belongs to Mala caste. Hence, they committed an offence punishable under Sections 448, 342, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (1) (v) and (x) of the Act, which is the subject matter of Cr.No.78 of 2001 on the file of IV Town Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam. In that case, the complainant and others were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, the present complaint is lodged by the complainant against the petitioner stating that though the petitioner knows about his caste, still he lodged a false complaint and therefore, it is an offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (v) and 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The matter was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order (South) and after conducting the investigation the police referred the same as mistake of fact. On a protest petition, the complaint was taken cognizance and committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was numbered as S.C.No.2 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. At the time of framing of charge, the present petition is filed to discharge the petitioner herein from the above case on the ground that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct at this stage, they do not make out a prima facie case under Section 3 (1) (v) and 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject matter of Cr.No.78 of 2001 is not yet decided. Unless the said case is completed, the question of prosecuting the petitioner in the Session’s case does not arise; that the petitioner has not given any complaint to take action against the complainant for any one of the offences under the Act; and that there is absolutely no material on record to proceed further against the petitioner and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that the trial Court found that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner to proceed further; that admittedly, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, IV Town Law and Order Police Station, Visakhapatnam, against the complainant and others stating that they abused one Yesuratnam in the name of his caste; that police registered a case under Sections 448, 342, 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and under Sections 3 (1) (v) and (x) of the Act; that the complainant and others were arrested and remanded to judicial custody; and thereafter, the complaint is lodged by the complainant in this case under Sections 3 (1) (viii) and 3 (1) (ix) of the Act. 5. Sections 3 (1) (viii) and 3 (1) (ix) of the Act reads as follows: “(viii) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;” “(ix) gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that unless the proceedings are terminated, the question of prosecution does not arise. Further, he placed strong reliance on a decision of Madhya Pradesh Court in Abdul Rasheed Siddiqui and another v. State of M.P. and others[1], wherein it is held thus: “The provisions of the Act, in particular of Section 3 (1) (Viii), are intended to protect persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes from harassment by false, malicious or vexatious litigation. An offence can be registered only after the Court dealing with the suit or criminal or other proceedings which is alleged to be false, malicious or vexatious is disposed of. Registration of case during the pendency of such a proceeding would amount to pre judging the issue which the civil or criminal court in such proceeding may be called upon to decide. Prosecution of a plaintiff or a petitioner or a complainant would naturally have a tendency of preventing people from approaching Court of law for redressal of grievances. If a private individual tries to prevent any person from approaching a Court of law, that may, depending on the circumstances of the case, amount to contempt of Court. We are, therefore, satisfied that the legislative intent in enacting Section 3 (1) (Viii) of the Act is not to enable registration of a crime on a mere filing of a suit or criminal or other proceeding against a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and without waiting for the disposal of the suit or such other proceedings. If the suit or the other proceeding is decided against the persons belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, certainly there is no offence committed. Even if the proceeding is dismissed, it would be possible for the person who filed the proceedings to contend that the proceeding was not either false or malicious or vexatious. A case cannot be registered merely on basis of filing of a suit or criminal or other legal proceedings. Whether an offence has been committed or not can be decided only after the suit or proceeding is over.” 7. No doubt, as seen from the above judgment, a finding has been given that whether the offence has been committed or not. It can be decided only after the suit or criminal proceeding is over. That is a case where the Writ Petition is filed and therefore, the contention in the above case that the fact of filing a Writ Petition against the petitioner would be an offence under Section 3 of the Act. In pursuance of that Writ Petition, a complaint was lodged and the same was registered under Section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act. There is a settled distinction between Sections 3 (1) (viii) and 3 (1) (ix) of the Act. Under Section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act whoever institutes a false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings is an offence. So in those circumstances, it is observed that whether the offence has been committed under Section 3 (1) (viii) or 3 (1) (ix) of the Act has to be decided in the proceeding itself. But, Section 3 (1) (ix) of the Act is entirely different from clause (viii) that giving any false or frivolous information to any public servant itself is an offence. Therefore, the complainant did not wait till the competent Court gives the verdict. Therefore, the above decision has no application to the present facts of the case, in view of the fact that the petitioner knows full well that the complainant belongs to a scheduled caste community, he along with one Yesuratnam lodged a complaint against the complainant and others and police registered a case and arrested them. This can be seen from the sworn statement of the complainant. When the de facto complainant questioned the petitioner as to why he lodged the complaint, the petitioner stated that he knows that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community, but still he lodged a complaint. Therefore, that shows he gave the information falsely and intentionally. Hence, the trial Court upon consideration of material on record rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to avail such other remedies available to him under law before the trial Court. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 01, 2010 MD [1] AIR 1995 Madhya Pradesh 138