IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4638 of 2009 DATE:07.02.2011 Between: Lakshmi Bai and another …… Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4638 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and 506 I.P.C in Special S.C. No.12 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad. On the report given by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant/victim, the Saidabad police registered case, investigated into the same and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malakpet division, Hyderabad filed charge sheet in the lower Court against A-1 and A-2. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of proceedings in the pending criminal case on several grounds, by invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Placing reliance on Georige Pentaiah V. State of A.P[1] of the Supreme Court, it is contended that basic ingredients of Section 3(i)(x) of the Act do not find place in the report given by the 2nd respondent in this case. Now, the report was investigated into and charge sheet is filed. As per the averments in the charge sheet, the victim belongs to S.C (Madiga) by caste as per certificate issued by M.R.O, Saidabad vide lr.Dis.No.C/4496/99, dated 11.10.1999. It is further averred in the charge sheet that A-1 and A-2 are barber by caste. The offence took place near the house under construction bearing No.17-1-391/2/94 of Vishnunagar, Saidabad. It is alleged that A- 1 and A-2 who are mother and son abused Nadimdoddi Mallamma who is mother of the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant to the following affect: “Ekkadanuncho Vachina Madiga Munda Kodaka. Maa Illa prakkana Enduke. Madiga Lanje” 4. It is further alleged that the accused further threatened to kill if they constructed house at that place and threatened to sell away and vacate. Thus, the allegations do disclose the ingredients of not only the offence punishable under Section 3(i) (x) of the Act as well as Section 506 I.P.C. 5. It is next contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the report was given not by the mother but by the 2nd respondent who is son of the alleged victim and that the report was given to the police after 36 hours of the offence. The criminal law does not require that the victim alone should be the complainant. Any person who has any information about commission of a cognizable, is at liberty to move the criminal law machinery by giving report to the police or by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. The alleged delay of 36 hours in giving report to the police may be relevant in appreciating the prosecution case and in deciding truth of the allegations. Truth or otherwise of the allegations, cannot be subject matter of this criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as it is a question of fact to be decided by the trial Court after both the parties leading evidence during trial. In any event, delay in giving report to the police alone cannot be a ground to throw the case out of record. Since the allegations against the accused are to the affect that the accused abused the victim in the name of caste and humiliated her, out of humiliation, there is every possibility of the parties going into depression. This is not a case where there is possibility of roping in many persons after confabulations and consultations like in a faction case. This is a case which is stated to have occurred in between two neighbouring owners. So, the alleged delay is no ground for quashing the criminal proceedings pending in the lower Court. 6. Placing reliance on Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited V. Rajiv Dubey[2] a n d M.N.Ojha V. Alok Kumar Srivastav[3] and State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal[4] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that criminal proceedings against the petitioners are manifestly attended with malafides and instituted with ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and as a counter blast for the proceedings initiated by the accused against the defacto- complainant. It is further contended that sequence of events which preceeded giving of the present report to the police against the accused would disclose that the present case is vitiated by oblique motive and that the present case is a counter blast for the previous proceedings. Disputes arose between the parties who are neighbouring owners when the accused gave report against construction of house property by the prosecution party in their site at No.17-1-391/94. It is stated that A-1 gave report to the Municipal Corporation authorities against construction of house by the 2nd respondent’s mother contrary to building regulations and contrary to the sanctioned plan; and when the Municipal Corporation did not take action on report given by A-1, A-1 filed writ petition No.15868 of 2008 against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the 2nd respondent’s mother. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court at the admission stage by order dated 26.09.2008 directing the Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to consider the representation dated 01.07.2008 submitted by A-1 and pass appropriate orders thereon after putting the 2nd respondent’s mother on notice. It is contended that when the Municipal Commissioner did not take any action even thereafter, contempt petition was filed against him by A-1 and that the Commissioner reported to this Court about compliance of the order in the Writ Petition by stating that inspection of the disputed property was made and that with regard to the unauthorised construction, until necessary orders are passed on B.P.S application submitted by the 2nd respondent’s mother, no further action would be taken and that in so far as the windows are concerned, the 2nd respondent’s mother closed windows on ground floor and that windows in the 1st and 2nd floors are 2 feet inside the compound wall. Recording the said submission of the Commissioner of G.H.M.C, the contempt petition was closed by this Court in C.C. No.1751 of 2008 on 13.02.2009. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that report dated 27.10.2008 given by the 2nd respondent is motivated and is nothing but counter blast for the proceedings initiated by A-1 against his mother with regard to the construction of the house property. From the above facts, this Court is unable to conclude that the present criminal case is a counter blast for the action taken by A-1 against the 2nd respondent’s mother by way of writ petition and contempt petition. The offence alleged in this case is not a petty case or a trivial case. It is a grave offence touching the social status of the 2nd respondent’s mother. For investigation of such a case, a special investigating officer like Sub-Divisional Police Officer is named under the rules and a Special Court of the rank of Sessions Judge is constituted under the Act. Simply because there are certain proceedings initiated by the accused previous in point of time for registration of the present case, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the latter case is a counter blast for the former case. If that position is to be accepted as a general rule, then no criminal case can be instituted when once one of the two parties was vigilant in filing the first case against the other party. The 2nd respondent’s family belongs to a socially depressed class and caste. The probabilities in a case of this nature will be on either side. If the probabilities are to be taken into consideration, then it may be probable that because the accused took their upper hand in the writ proceedings against the 2nd respondent’s mother, they wanted to continue the said supremacy and intended to humiliate further the 2nd respondent’s mother. It may be even probable that the accused did not want that persons belonging to Madiga caste which is a scheduled caste should not construct a house consisting of three floors and it might have become an eye sore for the accused. Thus, it all depends upon the mentality of persons and the probabilities which a person views in given facts of the case. Simply because the accused took proceedings under the Municipal Corporation Act against the 2nd respondent’s mother, this Court is not ready to accept the petitioners’ contention that the present criminal case is motivated and is a counter blast for the previous proceedings. It is a matter which has to be appreciated by the trial Court after recording the entire evidence to be let in by both the parties. This is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the pending case at its threshold. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 07, 2011 ksh [1] 2009(2) ALT (Crl.) 249 (SC) [2] (2009)1 Supreme Court Cases 706 [3] (2009)9 Supreme Court Cases 682 [4] AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604