Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 118
(ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)
BILAL NAZKI & R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
E. Tirupem Reddy - Appellant.
Vs.
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandyal & Ors. - Respondent.
W. A. No.2048 of 2005
Decided on 28th January, 2006.
E. AYYAPU REDDY, for Appellant.
G. P. for Home (for Nos.1 & 2) and Ms. HEMA JAISWAL (for No.3), for Respondents.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, emphasizing that the offence requires intentional insult or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, and clarifying that the place need not be a public place but should be within public view.
Headnote:
SC & ST Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against them under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act). The appellant argued that no offence was disclosed in the FIR and that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the power to quash FIRs or complaints should be sparingly exercised and only when no offence is disclosed. The Court noted the allegations in the FIR regarding the appellant's actions and statements towards the respondent, and emphasized that whether the words were uttered in a public view or not was a question of fact to be decided during the trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, specifically whether the alleged actions of the appellant constituted an offence under the Act and whether the incident occurred in a public view.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act requires intentional insult or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. The Court overruled previous judgments and clarified that the place where the incident occurred need not be a public place, but it should be within public view, and the presence of the public is not necessary for an act to be considered within public view.
Final Decision: The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
2. The writ petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of First Information Report having been registered as Cr.No.11 of 2004 of Gadivemula Police Station by 2nd respondent. It was stated that in the FIR no offence whatsoever under Sections 420 and 506, IPC was made out and the 3rd respondent tried to take undue advantage of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC & ST Act) and deliberately concocted a story and gave the complaint against the petitioner. No offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act was made out even according to the allegations made in the complaint. It was not alleged that the place where the 3rd respondent had met the petitioner was a public place and that the 3rd respondent had been insulted by the petitioner publicly and there was no person by name Nadam Erranna in the village as is evident from the certificate issued by the concerned Mandai Revenue Officer.
3. The law is well settled that the Court can exercise the power of quashing the FIRs or the complaints sparingly and this power is mainly exercised when no offence is disclosed in the complaint or in the FIR. If the FIR is taken to be true and even then it is found that no offence is committed, the Court can exercise such jurisdiction. In this connection a reference is made to a judgment of Full Bench of this Court reported in Girish Sarwate Vs. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, State of A. P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, 2004(6) ALT 757 : [2005 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 33]. In the light of this test, let us see the complaint and thereafter go to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant/write petitioner.
4. The FIR discloses some past alleged transactions between the petitioner and 3rd respondent. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the writ petitioner had obtained the thumb impressions of 3rd respondent on some bonds and the 3rd respondent was demanding the bonds. These bonds were taken by the writ petitioner from the 3rd respondent promising him that he would give financial assistance for the purpose of purchasing a Jowar Crushing Machine. The crushing machine was not supplied nor any financial assistance was arranged and the bonds were also not returned. The writ petitioner, on the other hand, got a machine and kept it in his own stray yard and was using it personally. The 3rd respondent demanded the bonds or the machine. Then the writ petitioner started abusing him by taking his caste name as “Madiga Na Koduka Nevu Nannu Padepadu Bondlu Gani Jonnala Krushing Machine Gani Adiginatteaiti Ne Anthu Chustanu”. Further it is stated in the complaint. Subsequently on 7-2-2004 at about 10.00 a.m. the said Tirupam Reddy while going through the passage from our S. C. colony, once again 1 requested him and intended to know about the bond and the Jowar Crushing Machine, again he abused me “Are Madiga Koduka Neku Bayapadi Vapasu Ivvavalana and further threatened me to inform wherever I like and nobody can do anything to him. Further he stated that he is having political support. At that time my wife and other Nagam yerranna s/o Hanumanthu were also present at the scene. He humiliated me and my wife by taking our caste.”
5. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act lays down :
“Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Trine-
“intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”.”
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that even if the allegations leveled in FIR are taken to be true, there is no allegation that the words uttered by the writ petitioner were uttered in a public view with an intention of
