Back
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dadi Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[For short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the petitioner/Accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.2042 of 2020 of Anakapalli Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3 (1)(s) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[For short ‘the PoA Act’].
2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:
a. Respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who belongs to SC Mala community has been working as Telugu Lecturer in AMAL College, Anakapalle, since 2000 for which, the Petitioner is the Correspondent. On 24.09.2019, Petitioner in his chambers, abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste, saying “Maala Naa Kodaka Neeku Udyogam Ivvadame Ekkuva Edi Tappu Edi Oppu Ani Maake Chebutaavaa”and thereby insulted him. Petitioner intentionally abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste in the presence of others.
b. Petitioner has not granted arrears of salary and arrears of increment to Respondent No.2, thereby causing financial troubles and mental agony. The Petitioner
The court quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act due to lack of public view in the alleged incident, emphasizing the need for specific ingredients to establish the offence.
Insults under the SC/ST Act must occur in public view; absence of this element negates the offence.
The court emphasized that criminal proceedings must be quashed if they lack prima facie evidence, preventing abuse of the judicial process.
The court quashed proceedings against petitioners as allegations did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the need for prima facie grounds for prosecution.
FIR under SC/ST Act quashed absent caste-based insult, humiliation intent linked to caste, or cognizable offence ingredients; prior similar vexatious complaints indicate abuse of process for revenge.
Allegations under the SC/ST Act require intentional insult or intimidation in public view; dismissal of revision upholds trial due to sufficient prima facie evidence.
The court clarified the interpretation of 'within public view' in the context of the Atrocities Act, holding that a place can be considered 'within public view' even if it is a private place, provide....
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
