HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3383 AND 4732 OF 2008 DATED 15th NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Pamula Brahmananda Reddy and anr ……… Petitioners in Crl.P.No. 3383 of 2008 Mullah Fayaz and ors …Petitioners in Crl.P.No. 4732 of 2008 and The State of AP, Rep. by Public Proseuctor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad, and anr …..Respondents in both Crl.Ps. ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3383 AND 4732 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions can be disposed of by this common order in as much as all the petitioners seek to quash the very same crime registered against them. These two Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 97 of 2008 registered on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station (Urban), Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District, in so far as the petitioners are concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 353, 324, 341 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. The second respondent lodged a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jammalamadugu, stating as follows: On 11.6.2008 at about 5.30 PM he along with other staff constables were controlling the traffic and when they found two persons parked the scooter obstructing the traffic, they imposed fine under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. At that time, one boy by name Muni Raj Reddy, who was standing by the side of the Jeep commented adversely that the police are imposing fine in a peculiar manner. When the second respondent and his staff obstructed the said Muni Raj Reddy not to shout like that, the said boy started abusing them in filthy language. As such, they were taking the said Muni Raja Reddy to the Police Station. Knowing the same, one Lok Satta Brahmananda Reddy ( Accused in Cr.No. 92 of 2008) and Mulla Jani, an ex.rowdy sheeter, along with some other persons came there by Scorpio vehicle and blocked the traffic by keeping the said vehicle across the road. At that time, one SivanathReddy, a ZPTC member of Muddanur came there and took away the said Lok Satta Brahmananda Reddy and Mulla Jani. After some time, the said Lok Satta Brahmananda Reddy (A.1), Mulla Jani (A.2) and others came to the Police Station and started pelting stones. One media report, Mr. Kiran of NTV suffered with head injury. In the said process, they insulted the second respondent abusing in filthy language in his caste name. Hence, the complaint. Heard the learned Counsel. Perused the case file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition submitted that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet disclose the hurling of abuse words by the petitioners; that hurling the abusive words in the name of the caste per se will not attract the offence as defined under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act; and that the petitioners herein did not utter any word abusing the name of the caste of the second respondent-complainant. They relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh {(2008) 12 SCC 531) in support of their contentions. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the case of the complainant-second respondent. She submitted that there are no grounds, much less a valid ground to quash the crime registered against the petitioners. She submitted that for the acts of the accused in pelting stones on the complainant it is manifest that the accused with a motive to humiliate and insult him, abused him in abusive language with the name of his caste. She further submitted that as the complainant did not accomplish his wishes, A.1 developed grudge against him and under the guise of the same, to humiliate the complainant, the petitioners unnecessarily picked up quarrel and pelted stones at Police Station and as such, it cannot be said that there is no intention on the part of the accused in using the abusive and filthy language against the complainant. He relied on the judgment in Arumugam Servai Vs.State of Tamilandu (AIR 2011SC 1859). It is obvious from the material on record that the complainant while discharging the duties, took the said Muni Raja Reddy, who is the son of A.1 to police station as he heckled against the police. Further it is evident from the contents of the complaint that A.1 herein is also an accused in Crime No.89 of 2008 on the file of the SHO, Police Station Urban, Jammalamadugu, and his request for implicating any other person in his place in the said crime was rejected by the complainant-second respondent. These acts might have lead the accused to develop grudge against the complainant and in that process they might have indulged in the so called alleged offences. These external acts reveal the internal secret purpose, or more shortly, the acts indicate the intention. Intention in a case can mainly be inferred from the acts of the persons committing the crime. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Gorige Pentaiah (supra), there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the said decision. In the said Case, nowhere in the complaint it was mentioned that the accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intentint to humiliate the complainant in a place within public view and that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the accused to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. The said decision does not help the case of the petitioners herein. In the case on hand, in the complaint it self it was stated that the complainant belongs to Sagely caste, which is a Scheduled Tribe. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant, it was stated as to the vulgar language used by naming his caste. As such, basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are prima facie reflected from the complaint. Further more, in the decision relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor, it was unilaterally held thus: “Hence, we direct the administrative and police officials to take strong measures to prevent such atrocious acts. If any such incidents happen, apart from instituting criminal proceedings against those responsible for such atrocities, the State Government is directed to immediately suspend the District Magistrate/Collector an11111d SSP/S Ps of the district as well as other officials concerned and charge sheet them and proceed against them departmentally if they do not (1) prevent the incident if it has not already occurred but they have knowledge of it in advance, or (2) if it has occurred, they do not promptly apprehend the culprits and others involved and institute criminal proceedings against them, as in our opinion they will be deemed to be directly or indirectly accountable in this connection. The Appellants in the present case have behaved like uncivilized savages, and hence deserve no mercy. With these observations the appeals are dismissed.” The manner in which the whole episode took place prima facie demonstrates the grudge developed against the complainant by the accused and thereby the intention on the part of the Accused in insulting and intimidating with a view to humiliate the complainant in filthy and abusive language in his caste name, in a place within public view. In as much as the intention specifically took root on the part of the accused, there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the crime in question. The Criminal Petitions are therefore dismissed. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 15th November, 2011. Msnro