THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2212 of 2010 (Dated : 30-11-2010) Between: Chikkam Vamshi Krishna …Petitioner A n d State of AP rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2212 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.478 of 2010 in Special S.C.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of SC/ST (POA) Act-cum- VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is:- On 02.12.2008 at about 19.30 hours Smt. N.Dhanalakshmi W/o K.S.Reddy, Advocate along with Lw-2 Smt. Rapolu Suvarna, Lw-3-Smt.K.Ruchila, Lw-4-Smt.Gangadari Prameela, Lw-5-Smt.A.Sattemma, Lw-6-Smt.Tappettla Prema and Lw-7-Smt.Baggori Jayamma went to the office of the accused for discussions with regard to marital disputes of the petitioner with Lw-2-Rapolu Suvarna. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused abused Lw-1 and others naming their caste and using filthy language. Basing on the statements, Lw-18- Mohd.Khaja, Sub Inspector of Police, S.R.Nagar P.S., registered a case in Crime No.1122 of 2008 under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 and Section 323 IPC and issued F.I.R. Lw-19-J.Subbarami Reddy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Panjagutta took up investigation and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.15 of 2009 and committed the case to the Special Judge for trial of SCs&STs(POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 3. The learned Special Judge took the case on file as Special S.C.No.15 of 2010. The petitioner filed petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge on the ground that the material gathered during investigation does not make out any valid ground to prosecute him for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989. 4. The learned Special Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 19.11.2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ According to the charge sheet and 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.Ws.4 to 6 they are victims and they belong to Schedule Caste and Lw.7 and 10 to 12 are also direct witnesses. As per their statements when Lw.2 Smt. Rapolu Suvarna President of Chaitanya Mahila Samakhya of Dodupapal village informed to Lw.1 Smt. N.Dhanalakshi, so herself along with Chaitanya Mahila Mandal members Lws.2 to 7 went to the accused office and asked about the accused to talk about issue of his wife , he refused to talk and started to abuse them in filthy language and insulting them in public on the caste name Malla Madia. So as per material on record FIR, Charge sheet, 161 Cr.P.C statements , the prima facie offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs.&STs (POA) Act abusing schedule caste ladies to insult them within the public view on the road in the presence of Lws.7, 10 to 12. As per the charge sheet, the caste of the accused is disclosed as Kapu (Naidu) other than the S.C& ST. Simply by mistake the caste of the accused is not mentioned in complaint, though the de facto complainant knows that the accused is other than the SC and ST it does not mean it is non-compliance of provisions of Section 3(1)(X) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, because during trial the Investigating Officer found the accused belongs to Kapu (Naidu) other than SC and ST and filed the charge sheet. In such circumstances the petitioner/accused cannot be relied the above decisions (1) 2009 (4) SCJ 275 (2) 2010(1) ALD (Crl. 150 (AP) (3) 2009(2) ALT (Crl.) 317 (SC) as the material placed by the prosecution before the Court is made out prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs& STs (POA) Act and other offence under Section 323 IPC as Lw.1 also received simple injury as per doctor certificate”. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no consistency in the statements of the witnesses and more particularly, two witnesses, namely, Achhi Sreenu and Mundandi Narsimha Raju and that they did not speak of the accused hurling abuses against the victims naming their caste in which case, the prosecution of the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C/S.T (POA) Act amounts to abuse of process of Court. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P and Others[1] in support of his submissions. It has been held in the cited decision that every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justice to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of process of Court. 7. I have gone through the charge sheet filed in Crime No.1122 of 2008. The victims are Lws.2 to 6. They categorically stated that the petitioner-accused abused them naming their caste. Section 227 confers a special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the record and documents, he considers that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In other words, his consideration of record and the document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trial against the accused. If he comes to the conclusion that there exists sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 288, if not he will discharge the accused. 8. The next question is what is the scope and ambit of the consideration by the trial Court at that stage. The enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge. At that stage, the court may sift the evidence for that limited purpose, but the Court is not required to marshall the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chalf. All that the Court is called upon to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence, vide decision of the Supreme Court in ONKAR NATH MISHRA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)[2]. 9. The learned Special Judge considered the statements of Lws.4 to 6, 7 and 10 to 12 and proceeded to dismiss the application. Lw-3-K.Ruchila, Lw-4-Smt.Gangadari Prameela, Lw- 5-Smt.A.Sattemma and Lw-6-Smt.Tappetla Prema stated in their police statement that the petitioner-accused abused them naming their caste. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.30-11-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2212 of 2010 DATED : 30-11-2010 [1] 2009(4) SCJ 275 [2] 2008-Crimes (Sc)-1-42