THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.6475 & 6511 of 2007 Date of Order: 23-09-2010 CT in Crl.P.No.6475 of 2007 Between: Nagireddy Sree Ramulu ..Petitioner and SoruSambayya and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.6475 & 6511 of 2007 Common order: 1. These two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by A2 and A1 respectively are to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.13 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 506 (2) IPC and Section 3(1)(iii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). 2. One Mr. Soru Sambayya—complainant filed the above complaint against the accused 1 and 2 before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bobbili stating that he worked as Ward Councillor in Bobbili Municipal Council and esposing the cause of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people regarding the injustice meted out to them. He also conducted public meetings with regard to human rights violation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people and condemned the illegal acts of 2nd accused, who was responsible for the death of Doppa Srinivasa Rao, son of a judicial employee, in P.S. Cheepurupalli when he 2nd was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili. He requested the police officials to initiate necessary action against the responsible, for which A1 and A2 grew wild against the complainant for questioning the rights of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people and taking advantage of their official position as police officers, they have committed several offences particularly, for the last six months. 3. A1, who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili PS and A2, who is working as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bobbili harassed the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences; both the accused not only insulted but also scolded him in unparliamentarily language in the name of his caste; in some occasions they raised deadly weapons and threatened him to kill him in their forceful custody. In the month of September, 1992 when atrocities were committed against the Scheduled Caste people in Alajangi village, Bobbili Mandal by rich and influenced people of the village, he represented the same to the higher police and executive people including Irrigation Minister and consequently, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Visakhapatnam; Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram; Joint Collector, Vizianagaram; Irrigation Minister were present and in their presence the complainant cooperated with them for solving the problem to keep peace in the village for a long time. 4. In the month of January, 1994, when upper caste people renewed the atrocities, the complainant represented the said incident to the police officials which resulted in registering FIR against the complainant and 39 others as one group and 80 people as other group without verifying the truth and ultimately the matter was settled at the instance of the complainant. Due to malaise, the accused 1 and 2 with the assistance of Sondi Venkata Rao of Bobbili and one Vasu, who is the press reporter of Vaartha Telugu Daily News Paper, registered a case against the complainant in Crime No.110 of 2006 of Bobbili PS, for which serious instructions were given by A2. Therefore, A1 and A2 hatched up conspiracy to harass and criminally intimidate him. The said acts of the accused cause injury and hardship to the human rights of the complainant. 5. Therefore, the complainant made a complaint to the CBCID on 14-03-2006 and also to the National Commission for Scheduled Caste, for which copy of the reply dated 12-04-2006 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram was communicated to the complainant. The complainant also made a representation dated 18-07- 2006 to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and copies of the same were communicated to the concerned higher police officials. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Parvathipuram, on the instructions, enquired the complainant about the offensive conduct of the accused 1 and 2 on 30-08-2006 and also recorded his statement. 6. While so, the complainant filed a private complaint in DDR No.7825/14-09-2006 and the same was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. One month thereafter i.e. on 19-10-2006, Bobbili Police registered a crime, but without proper investigation and without examining any witness the said complaint was lodged. Therefore, the complainant filed the present compliant in the form of protest petition pursuant to notice issued by the Court on 08-03-2007. 7. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant on 21-04-2007 and on consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 recorded in DDR. No. 1889/26-03-2007 took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 506 (2) IPC r/w Section 3(1) (iii) of the Act against A1 and for the offence under Section 506 IPC against A2. To quash the said proceedings the present criminal petitions are filed. 8. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for A2—petitioner in Crl.P.No.6475 of 2007 contends that except making bald allegations in the complaint and protest petition, the complainant has not made any endeavour to prove the same. The sworn statement of complainant recorded by the Magistrate only shows that when the complainant went to the office of A2 to lodge a complaint, A2 uttered some words, which do not amount to criminal intimidation, but proceeded against the petitioner (A2) for the offence under Section 506 IPC. He also contends that number of cases were registered against the complainant in Bobbili Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506(2) IPC and 420 and 506(2) IPC in Cr.Nos.194/2006 and 110/2006 respectively; as a counter blast to the same, the complainant has resorted to file the above complaint which is nothing but abuse of process. Further, the Magistrate has not taken the final report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer into consideration before taking cognizance of the case and if the complaint is allowed to proceed on the bald allegations, which will result in harassment to the petitioner (A2) and requested to quash the proceedings initiated against him. 9. Smt. M.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for A1 —petitioner in Crl.P.No.6511 of 2007 contends that the complaint allegations and sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate do not disclose commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Act to proceed against the petitioner. Since the premises of police station is not in public view under the provisions of the Act whether it constitutes any offence or not is also doubtful. For which reliance is placed on the following judgments. 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. MUMBAI v. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS.[1] 2. J.SUMANA v. ENDLURI ASEERWADAMMA[2] She also contends that complaint allegations and sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate are very vague. Therefore, the petitioner (A1) cannot be proceeded under Section 506 IPC. She further contends that the alleged offence, if any, committed by A1 is while discharging official duty, therefore, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence without obtaining sanction of the Government under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 6. Refuting the above said contentions, Sri Bojja Tarakam, learned senior counsel for Mr.V.Raja Manohar, learned counsel for the complainant in both the criminal petitions contends that the present petitions filed to quash the PRC cannot be entertained without challenging the docket order passed by the Magistrate dated 30-07- 2007 either by way of appeal or by way of revision. When the Magistrate after going through the complaint allegations and sworn statement of the complainant, prima facie, satisfied that cognisable offence is made out against the petitioners; therefore, evidence adduced is sufficient to convict them for the offence alleged cannot be looked into at this stage. The allegations made in the complaint do attract any offence or not is a matter, which has to be probed into. Further, the accused uttered foul words not only against the complainant but also against his mother in the name of their caste in filthy language that too in the police station, which is a public view, which cannot be write off by quashing the complaint at the initial stage and the complainant should be given an opportunity to prove the guilt of the petitioners/accused. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court. 1. STATE OF BIHAR v. P.P.SHARMA, IAS[3] 2. INDIA CARAT PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA[4] 7. Indisputably, the complaint allegations, referred to above, and the sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate do disclose that the complainant is ventilating the grievances of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people. In that behalf, he visited the police station and contacted the Sub-Inspector of Police (A1), who in turn assured that he will look into the matter and asked the complainant to go home. After fifteen days, the complainant made a complaint to the Grievance Cell, Collector Office; Director General of Police, Hyderabad; CBCID, IG, Hyderabad stating that on lodging complaint with the police station no receipt has been given. After one week of making such complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili (A1) called him to the police station and when he was standing in front of the room of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, A1 scolded why he has complained against him to the higher official; it is for him to register or to close the case. The complainant stated that whenever Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person lodges a complaint, receipt has to be given; after A1 assumes charge five cases were received but in none of the cases he acknowledged the receipt of the compliant. At that time, A1 scolded the complainant in the name of his caste and further threatened “I will shoot you what you can do; I will kill your children also and see that you will not be visible in the district”. On the very same day, he went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Parvathipuram and complained about the uttering of Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili. The complainant also made a complaint to CBCID, Hyderabad to enquire into the matter. After two days, again he brings it to the notice of all higher officials about abusing of A1 in the name of his caste. In August, 2006, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili (A1) called the complainant to the police station. Then, the complainant went to the police station along with Baddana Appa Rao, Gadilivarthi Radha, Ashirvad and Nagara Ramu, Congress Permanent Board member. On seeing the complainant in the police station, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili grew wild and asked the complainant why he has complained to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Parvathipuram against him and abused him in the name of his caste. When the complainant bring the same to the notice of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bobbili, who in turn told that you made a complaint against me also to the Superintendent of Police, Parvathipuram with similar allegations made against the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili and unless he withdraw the complaint made against Sub-Inspector of Police, Bobbili, whatever the Sub-Inspector of Police did he will also do the same thing. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bobbili also stated that when he worked as Sub-Inspector of Police at Cheepurupalli from 1982-89, the son of Court employee was dead in the lock up; in that context, the complainant conducted public meeting and since then he is observing when he will be available; are you M.LA and M.P. to complain against us and I will see that your will not be visible in the village and sent him away. The same, prima facie, amounts to criminal intimidation. The Supreme Court in STATE OF BIHAR v. P.P.SHARMA (3 supra) categorically held as under: “Another crucial question is whether the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would interfere and quash the charge-sheet. The High Court found that the documents relied on by the respondents/accused were not denied by the State by filing the counter-affidavit. Therefore, they must be deemed to have been admitted. On that premise the High Court found that no prima facie case was made out on merits and chances of ultimate conviction is “bleak”. The court is not passive spectator in the drama of illegalities and injustice. The inherent power of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is permitted to be resorted to. When the documents relied on by the respondents “demonstrate that no prima facie offence is made out on the face value of those materials, then the criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue and so it should be quashed”, and “in such a situation and circumstances the petitioners who had got a right under the Constitution for the protection of their liberty have rightly approached this Court and this Court in these circumstances has no option but to grant the relief by quashing the FIR and both the charge-sheets”. Accordingly it quashed them. If this decision is upheld, in my considered view startling and disastrous consequence would ensue. Quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal court amounts to “killing a stillborn child”. Till the criminal court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground that alternative remedies provided by the Code as a bar. It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge- sheet and considering the matter on merit in the guise of prima facie evidence to stand an accused for trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial under Article 226 or 227 even before the competent Magistrate or the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence. Once the proceedings are entertained the further proceedings get stayed. Expeditious trial of a criminal case is the cardinal rule. Delay feeds injustice to social order and entertaining writ petitions would encourage to delay the trial by diverse tricks. It is not to suggest that under no circumstances a writ petition should be entertained. As was rightly done by Rajasthan High Court in this case at the instance of the directors of the company, wisdom lies to keep the hands back and relegate the accused to pursue the remedy under the Code. In several cases this Court quashed the criminal proceedings on the sole ground of delay. In a case FIR filed in 1954 for violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was challenged in the Allahabad High Court. It was deliberately kept pending in the High Court and in this Court till 1990. The accusation was violation of law by named persons in the name of non-existing firm. The FIR was quashed in the year 1990 by another Bench of which I was a member solely on the ground of delay. He achieved his object of avoiding punishment. This would show that an accused with a view to delay the trial, resorts to writ proceedings, raises several contentions including one on merit as vehemently persisted by Sri Jain to consider this case on merits and have the proceedings kept pending. The result would be that the people would lose faith in the efficacy of rule of law. Documents relied on by the respondents are subject to proof at the trial and relevancy. If proved to be true and relevant then they may serve as a defence for the respondents at the trial. The State quite legitimately and in my view rightly did not choose to file the counter-affidavit denying or contradicting the version of the respondents, in those documents. The commission of offence cannot be decided on affidavit evidence. The High Court has taken short course “in annihilating the still born prosecution” by going into the merits on the plea of proof of prima facie case and adverted to those facts and gave findings on merits. Grossest error of law has been committed by the High Court in making pre-trial of a criminal case in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. After the charge-sheet was filed, the FIR no longer remains sheet-anchor. The charge-sheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the base to take or refuse to take cognizance by the competent court. It is not the case that no offence has been made out in the charge-sheets and the first information report. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider all the decisions dealing with the scope of the power of the High Court either under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the first information report. The Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJANLAL[5] enumerated the illustrations under which proceedings can be quashed at the initial stages; they are as follows: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S. 156 (1 of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155 (2 of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Since the case on hand do not fall under any of the illustrations enumerated by the Supreme Court, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings and the complainant should be given an opportunity to establish his case. The Criminal Petitions are accordingly dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 23-09-2010 Murthy [1] 2000 (5) ALT 602 = 2000 (5) ALD 566 [2] 2003(1) ALT (Cr.) 246 = 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 252 [3] AIR 1991 SC 1260 = 1992 SCC Suppl.1 222 [4] AIR 1989 SC 885 [5] AIR 1992 SC 601 = 1992 SCC Suppl.-1 335