HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2268 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/accused (for short ‘accused’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in P.R.C.No.19 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada, registered for offences punishable under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the accused, the second Respondent is the complainant in the P.R.C. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the P.R.C. 3. The prosecution version is that the second respondent/de-facto complainant (for short ‘ the de-facto complainant’) is agricultural labourer and he belongs to S.C community and in their village due to heavy air, electricity wires were damaged and fell on the ground as a result of which there was no electricity supply in the village and consequently there was no water supply also in the village and therefore he along with the Sarpanch of their village by name Golla Chinna Gangaram and other villagers K.Balaraj, P.Srinivas Reddy, B.Mallaiah, and some others went to the office of A.D.E i.e., the accused during morning time on 30.06.2005 and they disclosed the matter to the accused for which the accused replied stating “ Yevadura neku lopaliki pampindu, mala lanja kodaka. Ward member ainanta matrana goppodivinava, enta dairamu ra neku mala munda kodaka prati okudu monagadu ainadu” and when he requested not to scold him by naming his caste then he said “inka matladutava yemi nevu chepadi maku, maku telusu, mavalu vaste bagu cheidaiki” and so saying caught hold of his shirt and then necked him out threatening to kill him if he visited him again following which he lodged report before the police at Banswada. 4. It is contended by the accused that on 30.06.2005 at 11.00 a.m., morning time while he was in the offence the de-facto complainant met him in the office and informed him that electricity wire in their village was broken and fallen down and asked him to rectify the same for which he replied that he would speak to the lineman of their village to rectify the error but the de-facto complainant abused him in filthy language and caught hold of the collar of his shirt and necked him out and then his staff namely Arvind, Sub-engineer, G.Somaiah, Attender, Boomaiah, Foreman intervened and rescued him and on enquiry he came to know that electricity poles WIG-5 and 51 in the village were damaged due to cutting of trees undertaken by the de-facto complainant following which he gave report dated 02.07.2005 to the police on the basis of which the case was registered in Crime No.92 of 2005 under Section 353 I.P.C against the de-facto complainant. The report to the said effect is filed. 5. It is contended on behalf of the accused that in view of the registration of the earlier case under Section 353 I.P.C., and with malafide intention and motivation and to abuse the process of law, the later report was created by the de-facto complainant following the case was registered and hence the same is to be quashed. 6. Further there are statements of the de-facto complainant, Golla Chinna Gangaram-Sarpanch of G.P.Tadkole, K.Balraj, P.Srinivas Reddy, B.Mallaiah, Sinde Suresh, K.Kameshwar Rao-A.D.E, Ambedkar Arvind-Sub- engineer, K.Mohan Shiva Prasad-Asst., Engineer, Gujjari Somaiah-Attender, G.Bhoomaiah-Foreman, Shaik Mahboob, private jeep driver and T.Bhaskar- another private jeep driver. Only the statement of the de-facto complainant is in consonance with the prosecution version in this case whereas the other persons either spoke against the version of the de-facto complainant herein or spoke in favour of the version of the accused. 7. It is very significant to note here that whereas the accused gave his report to the police on 02.07.2005 the de-facto complainant gave report to the police subsequently on 09.07.2005 that was after gap of seven days even though it is stated therein that the occurrence took place on 30.06.2005 itself. It is not a case of prior enmity between the parties. The de-facto complainant gave her report in the case with inordinate delay about which there is no plausible explanation. Therefore, the circumstances of the case prima facie provide that the incident alleged by the accused took place and the circumstances of the case also amply provide prima facie that only as a counter blast and with the intention of harassing the accused, the de-facto complainant gave her report to the police subsequently. If this type of reports are allowed to be taken into cognizance, no public servant can carry out his official duties properly. 8. I n KISHAN SINGH VS. GURPAL SINGH[1], under similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “It is to be noted that the appellant’s father Kishan Singh lodged F.I.R.No.144/02 on 23.7.2002 through his attorney Jaswanth Singh Mann under Sections 420, 323, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC against the respondents. The allegations made in the F.I.R were substantially similar to the allegations made by the appellants in Civil Suit No.1075/96, which had been decided against them. It is evident that the aforesaid F.I.R was filed with inordinate delay and there has been no plausible explanation for the same. The appellants lodged the aforesaid F.I.R only after meeting their Waterloo in the Civil Court. Thus, it is evident that the F.I.R was lodged with the sole intention of harassing the respondents. We are of the view that such an action on the part of the appellant’s father would not be bona fide, and the criminal proceedings initiated by him against the respondents amount to an abuse of the process of law.” 9. Though the facts of the case are some what different, the same principle holds good here also. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.19 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada are hereby quashed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 20.08.2011 VJL [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624