THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.7162 of 2008 Date: 02.11.2011 Between: Dr. P. Shravankumar Reddy … Petitioner/ Accused AND State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.7162 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.122 of 2005 on the file of the Begum Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad. The case was registered against two accused for the offences under Section 3 (i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act, for short) and under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). 2. On 28.05.2005, Kum. B. Sumalatha, daughter of the second respondent was admitted in the hospital owned by the first accused. The hospital is known as Shravana Hospital situate at Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad. A.1 is said to be one of the Directors/owners of the Hospital. 3. Kum. B. Sumalatha was admitted with pneumonia septicemia. As the condition of Sumalatha was deteriorating, the presence of the second respondent would appear to have been procured. Ultimately, Sumalatha died on account of penumonia septicemia. 4. It is the case of the accused that alleging that the death of Sumalatha was due to the negligence of the staff of the hospital, the second respondent with the help of his relatives ransacked the hospital on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2005 and that a complaint was lodged by A.1 in Begumbazar Police Station against the second respondent for his conduct in damaging the property of the hospital. It is the case of the second respondent that at about that time A.1 and A.2 behaved rashly with the second respondent and called him names with reference to his community and that the accused thus committed the offence u/s. 3 (i) (x) of the Act, as the second respondent is a member of the scheduled castes. He also alleged that the death of his daughter was on account of the negligent attitude of the hospital staff and that A.1 and A.2 thus are liable for punishment u/s.304-A IPC. 5. It is the contention of Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/first accused that the case against A.1 was not made out and that A.1 is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted. 6. It may be recalled that at the time of the accident, there was highhanded behaviour on the part of the second respondent and his relatives according to the accused. A.1 lodged a complaint against the second respondent, which was registered as First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.99 of 2005 under Sections 448 and 427 IPC. Subsequently, police laid charge sheet against the second respondent in CC No.5539 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 7. The second respondent, who was the accused in C.C.No.5539 of 2006 was ultimately acquitted. Inter alia, the Court held in C.C.No.5539 of 2006 that A.1 herein was not present at the hospital and that his evidence as a witness in C.C.No.5539 of 2006, therefore, could not be accepted. 8. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the absence of A.1 at the time of the commission of offence was made out from the judgment in C.C.No.5539 of 2006 and that no case, therefore, could be made out against A.1. The learned counsel for A.1 drew my attention to the deposition of A.1 herein as a witness in C.C.No.5539 of 2006. In that case, a suggestion was made to A.1 herein that he was not present at the time of the commission of alleged offences therein. Indeed, A.1 herein denied the suggestion. Be that as it may, the Court held in C.C.No.5539 of 2006 that A.1 herein was not present at the scene of offence at the time of the commission of offence. Consequently, prima facie, the absence of A.1 at the scene of offence at the time of the commission of offence is established. 9. Added to it, while the alleged offences occurred on the intervening night of 28/29.05.2005, the private complaint was lodged on 30.06.2005. Proper explanation is not offered for the delay in filing the private complaint more than a month after the incident. However, the effect of such a delay cannot be subject matter of a petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. 10. At the same time, where it has been the case of the second respondent himself in C.C.No.5539 of 2006 that A.1 was not present at the hospital at the time of the incident and where such a defence was accepted by the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.5539 of 2006, the claim of the second respondent against A.2 prima facie is not sustainable. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the first accused that the FIR is patently unsustainable and is prima facie found to be false. Consequently, the FIR in Crime No.122 of 2005 on the file of the Begum Bagar Police Station is hereby quashed as against the first accused. 11. The Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 02.11.2011 Isn