Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
Chinni Appa Rao and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of A.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 2036 of 2013
Decided On : 07-12-2015
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 149, 323, 342, 509 and 506 read with 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 161 or 162 and 482 – Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 – Articles 341 and 14 – Abused based on caste category – Complainant claims that he was abused by caste – Wife of de facto complainant and among others also categorically deposed about professing Christianity by the de facto complainant – Statements as to so-called abuses touching caste name as S.C., de facto complainants own statement vis-a-vis of his wife statement, it is clear that they are already converted into Christianity and running a Church and de facto complainant is serving as Pastor professing Christianity – Sought for quashing of private P.R.C. pending for committal supra besides saying complaint engineered with false allegations to implicate them by abusing the so-called concession as if available under his impression, though otherwise not even available to invoke Section 3(1)(x) of Act as if member belongs to SC/ST – Other contention is there are no worth ingredients from case propounded by complainant to attract Sections 506 or 509 or 342 IPC against any of the five accused – Held, de facto complainant is not entitled to concession of claiming as still a member of Scheduled Caste for the benefit of Act 33 of 1989 as Section 3 sub-section (1) on wording is whoever not being member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, particularly sub sections 9 and 10 uses the word a member of Scheduled Castes or a Scheduled Tribe, to mean he must continue as on date of alleged occurrence as a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – Once he is ceased to be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by conversion into Christianity from the words discussed particularly from the Order, 1950 amended by Act 63 of 1956 and later by Act 15 of 1990 and covered by Three-Judge Benches well considered expression in Soosais case that was not even referred to the conclusion in another Three-Judge Bench expression in Chandra Mohanans case, de facto complainant for no longer continues as a member of Scheduled Caste from the facts supra and when not entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Act, the prosecution invoking Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is unsustainable and the cognisance taken as P.R.C. is unsustainable and liable to be quashed – Even undisputedly this is a matter of civil dispute seized by Civil Court – Court finds that these allegations are included to make a claim mainly to rope under the substantial allegation of abuse on caste name as an after thought to the civil litigation and thereby cognisance taken for other offences also liable to be quashed – It is needless to say, paramount consideration under Section 482 Cr.P.C. irrespective of any allegations made to decide is, in rendering substantial justice and not mere enforcement of law – Hence quash the P.R.C. proceedings – Criminal Petition is allowed. (Paras 15 16 and 17)
1. The petitioners are A.1 to A.3 of P.R.C.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, which is out come of protest application of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, by name K. Srinivasa Rao, and the accused persons A.1-Chinni Apparao, his wife Smt. Chinna Appala Narsamma-A.3 and their son Chinni Appa Rao-A.2, are neighbours to the de facto complainant. Originally, Crime No. 28 of 2011 of Munagapaka Police Station, Visakahpatnam District, was registered for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act) and Sections 342, 509 and 506 read with 34 IPC on the report of the de facto complainant dated 28.03.2011 against five accused persons including the three quash petitioners supra as A.1 to A.3 and one Maddala Lakshmana as A.4 and Maddala Maheswara Rao as A.5 of T. Sirsapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal. The caste of A.1 to A.3 is shown as Yatha and the caste of A.4 and A.5 is shown as Gavara and they are not the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes and the de facto complainant shown his profession as Church Pastor and still as S.C. Mala in the said report. The police after investigation filed the final report dated 31.08.2011 referring the case as mistake of fact and a notice is also issued to the de facto complainant. After receipt of notice, the de facto complainant raised the protest application. In the course of investigation by police as many as seven witnesses were examined including the de facto complainant as LW.1 and his wife as LW.2 and one K.Lakshmi @ Ruthamma as LW.3, K.Veera Lakshmi @ Jyothi as LW.4, Ch. Lakshmi @ Santhikumari as LW.5, S. Varalakshmi @ Saramma as LW.6 and T. Sanyasamma @ Marthamma as LW.7. The very report of the de facto complainant vis-a-vis the statement of him recorded during investigation clearly speaks that he is working as Pastor of the Christ Sangam Church from the year 2004. The de facto complainant stated that he constructed the Church having purchased Ac.0.09 cents from one Geddam Bavanarsu and another Ac.0.09 cents from one Pentuboina Govindu and others and firstly he erected the Church in a thatched shed and later in the year 2007-08 he constructed a slabbed Church building and he further saying there is mettu way to go to the Church from the road. The neighbours are picking up quarrel with him for using the way and that is the root cause for the present crime. The de facto complainant claims that he was abused by caste in attracting Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The wife of the de facto complainant and among others also categorically deposed about professing Christianity by the de facto complainant. Leave about their statements as to the so-called abuses touching the caste name as S.C., the de facto complainants own statement vis-a-vis of his wife statement, it is clear that they are already converted into Christianity and running a Church and de facto complainant is serving as Pastor professing Christianity. It is not a disputed factum to be agitated, much less for a fact finding but the very say in categorical words of he is not only professing Christianity by conversion but also serving in preaching Christianity though basically a Hindu S.C. by caste. It is on that ground the caste certificate issued in favour of the de facto complainant as S.C.Mala by the Tahasildar, Anakapalli, is also cancelled vide proceedings dated 20.09.2014 in Rc. No. 292/2014/A and that proceedings are not in dispute. The petitioners there from sought for quashing of the private P.R.C. pending for committal supra besides saying the complaint engineered with false allegations to implicate them by abusing the so-called concession as if available under his impression, though otherwise not even available to invoke Section 3(1)(x) of the Act as if member belongs to SC/ST. The other contention is there are no worth ingredients from th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
