1998 Supreme(AP) 532
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
K.Mallesham - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-10-98
Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 - Section 438 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 18 - Crime registered u/s. 306I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act Anticipatory bail - Maintainability Section 18 of prevention of Atrocities Act excludes operation of Sec. 438 Cr. P.C. where case involves accusation of having committed offence under the Act - Detailed microscopic examination of FIR may not be permissible at this stage - Analysis and scrutiny of allegations in FIR however permissible to arrive at prima facie conclusion about applicability of provisions of the Act. (Paras 8 to 10 and 12)
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 - Section 18 - Deceased an attender in college allegedly committed theft of a cheque and got it encashed - He committed suicide when matter was reported to police - Investigation revealed that on mere suspicion ,that deceased had stolen the cheque all accused including petitioner had harassed him mentally and physically - Mere fact that defacto complainant and decreased belonged to scheduled caste itself might not attract the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act - Application of Section 438 Cr. P.C. was not excluded but there was distinct allegations against petitioners having harassed deceased Petitioner held not entitled to anticipatory bail. (Para 14)
Result: Application dismissed.
( 2 ) THE allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR) and the Remand Case Diary may, briefly, be noticed. The deceased, K. Tirupathi was working as an Attender in Sahiti Junior College, Parkal. The deceased is alleged to have committed theft of a cheque for Rs. 10,000-00 and presented the same in State Bank of Hyderabad and withdrew the amount. On 19-6-1998 the matter came to the notice of the management and an inquiry was held. The management is alleged to have made inquiry with the deceased and obtained the specimen signature and hand-writing for the purposes of comparison with the writing found on the cheque. On comparison, it was found that the deceased had committed theft of the cheque for Rs. 10,000. 00. Therefore, the management asked the deceased to pay the said amount in instalments. The deceased did not agree with the proposal and the management gave a report to the Police. The deceased, having come to know about reporting of the matter to the Police had committed suicide by consuming pesticide on the morning of 26-6-1998. On 27-6-1998, father of thedeceased, Kashamalla Yellaiah lodged a complaint against the petitioner and three others alleging that the accused made false allegations against the deceased and in that process harassed him mentally. On account of such un-bearable harassment, his son committed suicide by consuming pesticide by writing reasons on the black-board of the College and also leaving a death note addressed to the Press reporters. His son was admitted into a private hospital and during the course of treatment he died. The complainant accordingly prayed for taking appropriate action against the accused, who are responsible for mental harassment of his son and drove him to commit suicide. The S. I. of Police, Parkal, accordingly registered the case under Section 306ipc and Section 3 (i) (x) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
( 3 ) IT is revealed, during the course of investigation so far made, that all the accused, including the petitioner herein, on mere suspicion that the deceased had stolen the cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00, harassed him mentally and physically alleging that the deceased had drawn the cheque in the name of Raja. It is stated in the Remand Case Diary that due to unbearable harassment made by the accused, the deceased felt insulted, and got vexed with the life had decided to commit suicide by writing death note addressed to the Press Reporters of Parkal, SI of Police, Parkal, apart from writing the same tiling on the black-board at Sahiti Junior College, Parkal, stating that all the accused persons were responsible for his death.
( 4 ) IN this application, learned senior Counsel, Sri C. P. admanabha Reddy contends that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of any particular or specific act as such and under those circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, inter alia, contends that the application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (forshort the Code ) is not maintainable, since application of Section 438 of the Code is expressly barred by Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is contended by the leanied Addl. Public Prosecutor that a case against the petitioner had been registered not only under Section 306 IPC, but also under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Prevention