.r
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATIy#
'ik ili
f«r
MM
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL =>
O
C5,
O
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1253 OF 2019
Between:
1. B. Anitha Reddy,W/0 Ravikumar R/o. Plot. No. 550,
Ramakrishnapuram, Hyderbad
2. T.Ambanna, S/0 Gadheppa R/o. 46/153 GO B4, Budhwarpet, Kurnool,
Kurnool District
3. M.Hussain vali, S/0 Hussian Basha R/o. 99 TV Office, Kurnool, Kurnool
District
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep By Public Prosecutor High Court of
AP, Amaravathi
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
2. S. Syamala, W/o. GorantlappaR/o. 76-97-228-5, Kurnool
Town, Kurnool
District
...RESPONDENT/DEFACTOCOMPLAINANT
the circumstances
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in
the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
stated in
4^
is Sc.SPL.10/2018 on
Pleased to quash the proceedings as against accused
Sessions Judge,
the file of SC ST (POA) Act cum VI Additional District
Kurnool
l A. NO:1 OF 2019
the circumstances
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in
Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
stated in the
may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SC.SPL.No.10 of 2018 on
Session Judge.
the file of SC ST (POA) Act Cum VI Additional District
Kurnool pending disposal of the Quash Petition
the Memorandum
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing
arguments of
of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the
the Public
Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and
Sri N
behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Madhava Rao
Prosecutor on
Nalluri, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2
The Court made the following ORDER :
APHC010057082019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3330]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1253/2019
Between:
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
B.anitha Reddy and Others
AND
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
State Of Ap and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2.MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
The Court made the following;
r-
ORDER:
A report is lodged by the respondent No.2/cye
facto - complainant in
Crime No.40 of 2017 to the III Town, Police Station,
Kurnool. The Police has
registered the case for the offences under Sections
323, 506 read with 34 of
I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015 and
accordingly investigated the case and
forwarded the charge sheet under Section
173 of Cr.P.C. alleging that
, on
08.02.2017 in the afternoon
at about 12-15 hours, while the de facto
complainant was going to Joharapuram Village along
with her daughter, she
met accused No.l at Gandhi Statue in front of the Collectorate,
Kurnool.
While the de facto - complainant was interacting with
Anitha Reddy/AI, the
other accused also joined with Anitha Reddy/AI. When
the de facto
complainant questioned about the post in the Social
Media about abusing and
touching their caste name against her husband, the
petitioner/accused picked
up quarrel with the de facto - complainant by touching
her caste
name.
2. The police has laid the charge sheet before the
learned
Jurisdictional
Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has committed the
case to the Sessions
Court, which was registered as SC.SPL.No.10 of 2018
on the file of the
learned Special Court for trial of
cases under SC, ST (POA) Act cum VI
Additional District Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The said
case is assailed in the
present Criminal Petition on the ground that the present
case is filed as a
counter-blast to the case filed by the petitioners
where the
same police has
registered FIR No.39/2017 for the offences under Sections
323, 354
506 read
with 34 of I.P.C. against the de facto complainant
in SC.SPL.No.10 of 2018
and other accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would plead
the Court to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners herein and relied
upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State
of Uttar Pradesh & Another^
^ly
4. The Hon’ble Apex Court has quashed the proceedings observing that
the appellant was not abused “in any place within public view”. Hence, the
basic ingredients for attracting Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act was
missing/absent, as the incident in the said case was took place at the house of
the appellant (accused) and the said utterance was not made in any place
within “public view” and there is no intentional insult of such a degree that it
could provoke a person to break public peace or commit any offence.
Learned counsel for the 2"'^ respondent/cfe facto -
5. complainant would
submit that there is specific allegation against the petitioners/accused herein
that they have hurled the de facto - complainant in the public place. The
petitioners herein before the Collectorate of Kurnool have hurled & abused the
de facto - complainant and plead to dismiss the Criminal Petition interalia
stating the facts in the cited judgment are entirely different from the facts in the
present case.
6. Therefore, as seen from the charge sheet, the petitioners/accuse d
herein hurled in the name of caste of the de facto - complainant at the
Collectorate Office, Kurnool, which comes in the purview of the public.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/de facto - complainant relied on the
above case, mere counter blast is not a ground to quash the proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of the State of Haryana Vs. State of
Karnataka for the proposition that if the contents of the F.I.R. taken on their
^ 2023 see Online Se 668
face value does not make
out in caste against the petitioners
such an F.I.R.
results to be quashed.
V
9.
Point for consideration:
As stated by the learned
counsel for the
respondent, mere
counter blast is not a ground to quash the
proceedings.
10.
On perusal of the charge sheet, there is
an allegation against the
petitioners herein of hurling in the name of caste
near Collectorate Office. As
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
3 number of judgments, when
the
petitioner/accused abuses in the name of the caste,
outside the
compound
wall of the house, which
_ , , and in the present case the
offensive language was used at Collectorate which I
IS a public place and it is
audible to the public and whether
the insult is intentional
or not is a disputed
fact. Hence, any offensive language hurled at public
place is soul of clause
under Section 3(1, (x, of SC’s a ST's Prevention of
Atrocities
Act.
11.
On perusal of the Judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners and considering the
present facts of the case, the Criminal
Petition
is liable to be dismissed and it i
IS accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal
Petition shall stand closed.
SD/- B.PRASADA RAO
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Special Court For The Trail Of Cases
Under SC ST (POA) Act
Cum VI Additional District Session
Judge: Kurnool
2. One CC to Sri N Chandra Sekhar
Reddy Advocate [OPUCJ
3. ONE CC TO Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri,Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CC to the Public Prosecutor High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi [OUT]
5. THREE CD COPIES
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED:30/04/2024
^ >0^
ORDER
C3\\
0 9 SEP 7m
ill
m :
Cn
. Current Section
CRLP.No.1253 of 2019
pat c
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION