THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8533 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 9/A1 to A9 are accused of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act), along with another. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was forwarded by the Magistrate to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and it was registered as Crime No.452 of 2008 by the Sircilla Police for offences under Sections 500, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. After investigation, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sircilla, referred the case as false. The 2nd respondent filed Protest Petition before the Magistrate and it was enquired into. During enquiry, th e de facto complainant and three others gave their sworn statements. After recording the sworn statements, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, by passing the following order: “ Perused the record and the statements of PWs 1 to 4. The accusation is found. Cognizance is taken for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & STs prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, against A1 to A10. Issue summons to A1 to A10 and call on 11.06.2009. Office is directed to register the case as P.R.C.49 of 2009” 2. Questioning the said cognizance, A1 to A9 filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Grievance of the 2nd respondent is news items published in ‘Vaartha’ Daily newspaper and ‘Andhra Jyothi’ Daily newspaper dated 01.07.2008 under the captions of ‘SC, ST Atrocity Act should be amended’ and ‘SC, ST Act is being misused.’ The 2nd respondent belongs to Mala Community which is a Scheduled Caste. He claims to be a District leader and elected President of Mala Mahanadu of the District Community Society. While so, the above news items in the above papers were in a press meet convened by all party leaders in R & B Guest House of Sircilla town. As per the news items, the persons who participated in the press meet alleged that some persons were indulging in black mailing politics under the name of the Act and that some Dalith contractors are not paying wages to their labourers and when questioned, they are threatening to file cases against them under the Act. It is further alleged in the press meet that out of 100% cases lodged under the said Act, only 10% of the cases reached the stage of implementing and 90% of the cases were watered down for want of evidence. In that press meet, a case filed by the 2nd respondent against Biyyankar Srinivas was cited as example. It is further alleged that one person was indulging in several cases against several persons under the Act and is causing panic. It is further alleged that instead of filing cases under the Act against persons belonging to higher castes, such cases are being filed against persons belonging to backward classes and they are being harassed. 4. It is further alleged by the 2nd respondent in his sworn statement that A1 to A8 released the said press note in ‘Vaartha’ through A9 who sent the same to A10. A9 is stated to be correspondent of ‘Vaartha’ Telugu Daily newspaper at Sircilla. 5. At this stage, it will be useful to make reference to Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which reads as follows: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities:- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -------------------------- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; -------------shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extent to five years and with fine.” 6. In order to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the prosecution or the complainant has to allege and prove either insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. The press note in the press meet released by A1 to A8 through A9 did not insult or intimidate any person belonging to Scheduled Caste, much less it was intended to insult or humiliate such a person. It was a general criticism made by A1 to A8 on application of the Act and the Act being misused by some persons. A1 to A8 have merely voiced their anguish on misuse of provisions of the said Act by some persons. Allegation of misuse of provisions of the Act by some persons, does not by itself become either insult or intimidation of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that apart from making general statement about misuse of provisions of the Act, the press note further cited the example of the 2nd respondent’s previous case against one Biyyankar Srininvas under the Act. The press note further reads that the said previous case was stayed by this Court. It is the version of A1 to A8 that the previous case instituted by the 2nd respondent against one Srinivas was also one in the nature of misuse of the provisions of the Act. At best, the said statement amounts to allegation of malicious prosecution of the said Srinivas by the 2nd respondent. Allegation of malicious prosecution cannot be equated with either insult or intimidation by A1 to A8. If the entire press note released by A1 to A8 through A9 is read both in respect of general allegations of misuse of the provisions of the Act as well as specific allegation of misuse of provisions of the said Act by the 2nd respondent as against Biyyankar Srinivas, they cannot amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act as they neither insult nor intimidate a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. Even if the allegations mentioned in the private complaint/FIR and sworn statements of the 2nd respondent and his three witnesses are taken on their face value, they do not constitute any ingredients/statutory facts required under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Magistrate without considering the allegations in the complaint and sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses, mechanically took the case on file for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and the Magistrate did not perform his duty completely in as much as the Magistrate failed to consider the purport of the complaint and sworn statements with reference to legal requirements under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In that view of the matter, taking cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against the petitioners 1 to 9/A1 to A9, is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in P.R.C.No.49 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sircilla, Karimnagar District, insofar as the petitioners 1 to 9/A1 to A9 are concerned. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:13.12.2011 Lr.copy to be marked B/o.ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8533 of 2009 Dt:13.12.2011 ysk * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU + CRIMINAL PETITION No.8533 of 2009 % 13.12.2011 # Boddula Laxminarayana & others …Appellant Vs. $ State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor & another …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu ^Counsel for Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor ^Counsel for Respondent No.2: Smt.J.Sumathi <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: