Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.
Pasupuleti Chinachennaiah – Petitioner
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No: 12317/2025
Decided on 13.3.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri N.Ashwani Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Caste based abuse – Occurrence within public view is sine qua non for invocation of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
(2) Alibi – Plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty.
Headnote:
(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 509 [Section 79 of BNS, 2023] – Caste based abuse – FIR and charge-sheet – Offence under the Act would be made out when a member of vulnerable section of society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment – Assertion of title over land by either of parties is not due to either indignities, humiliations or harassment – Every citizen has right to avail their remedies in accordance with law – Offence of outraging a woman’s modesty hinges primarily on intention or knowledge of accused rather than woman’s actual reaction – Mere knowledge of victim’s caste or mere fact of victim belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe does not, by itself, attract rigour of SCs/STs (POA) Act – It is imperative that alleged offending conduct must be perpetrated with specific intent to humiliate victim on account of such caste identity. (Paras 13, 23 and 38)
(B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 509 [Section 79 of BNS, 2023] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Caste based abuse – FIR and charge-sheet – Allegations, even if taken at their face value, are omnibus, bereft of particulars, and conspicuously silent on indispensable statutory ingredient of occurrence “within public view,” which is sine qua non for invocation of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act – Complainant has not demonstrated presence of any independent witnesses or public visibility – Petitioner has placed on record that he was employed in Australia at relevant time – Private monetary disputes camouflaged as caste based offences, absent foundational ingredients of intentional humiliation in public view, amount to colourable exercise of criminal law and constitute abuse of process – Criminal case quashed. (Paras 50, 61 and 62)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 11[Section 9 of BSA, 2023] – Alibi – Plea of alibi rests on demonstrating physical impossibility of accused being at crime scene due to his proven presence elsewhere – Alibi is not a mere assertion but a rigorous evidentiary burden, requiring accused to establish through clear and reliable evidence that, at relevant time, he was at such a distant location that his presence at situs criminis was wholly impossible – Responsibility to substantiate the plea rests entirely on accused, who must produce cogent and trustworthy evidence – Such plea must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude possibility of accused’s presence at locus criminis, thereby subjecting defence to strict scrutiny. (Paras 46, 48 and 55)
Result: Criminal Petition allowed.
ORDER
Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.—Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’)/Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) by the Petitioner/Accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.165 of 2025 on the file of learned IV Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Speedy Trials Court for SC/ST Cases, Guntur.
Factual Matrix:
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Respondent No.2, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, lodged a complaint alleging that the Petitioner borrowed substantial sums of money, partially repaid the same, and thereafter abused her with caste-based remarks while refusing repayment. It was further alleged that Accused No.2, acting in concert with the Petitioner, visited the complainant’s residence, took away certain documents, and hurled caste-based slurs. The FIR was registered under Section 79 of ‘the BNS’/Section 509 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of ‘the SCs/STs (POA) Act’. The Petitioner, however, asserts that the allegations are false, concocted, and motivated by malice, as he was residing abroad at the relevant time, and that the dispute is essentially civil in nature concerning alleged monetary transactions.
Contentions of counsel for the petitioner:
3. Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire substratum of the prosecution case is vitiated by mala fides, political vendetta, and a manifest abuse of the process of law. The allegations contained in the FIR and charge sheet, even if taken at their highest value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Section 79 of ‘the BNS’/Section 509 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SCs/STs (POA) Act’). The invocation of penal provisions in the absence of foundational facts amounts to a colourable exercise of criminal law, squarely attracting the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated categories of cases warranting quashment to prevent vexatious prosecution.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the allegations of castebased abuse are omnibus, bereft of particulars, and fail to satisfy the statutory requirement of occurrence “within public view,” which is a sine qua non for attracting Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of ‘the SCs/STs (POA) Act’. The complaint is conspicuously silent on any public presence or independent witnesses to the alleged incident. The statements of LWs.2 to 5, being mere verbatim reproductions of the complainant’s version, lack independent corroboration and cannot constitute substantive material. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, (2023) 11 SCC 182 has categorically held that private disputes camouflaged as caste-based offences under ‘the SCs/STs (POA) Act’ amount to abuse of process and deserve to be quashed. The present case falls squarely within that ratio.
5. It is furthermore submitted that the allegations of borrowing and repayment of monies, coupled with execution of a promissory note, are quintessentially civil in nature. The attempt to criminalize a civil dispute by invoking penal provisions is impermissible in law. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that where the dispute is predominantly civil, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to harassment and miscarriage of justice. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the alleged borrowings are unsupported by documentary evidence, and the investigating agency has failed to recover any promissory note or corroborative material. The charge sheet is thus a mechanical reproduction of the FIR, devoid of independent investigation, and liable to be quashed.
