2011 (2) N.C.C. 21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma
Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2011
ASMATHUNNISA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF A.P. & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 29.03.2011
(Paras 8 to 12)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 482 — Exercise of the extraordinary power u/Art 226 of the Constitution of India — Or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court — Or otherwise to secure the ends of justice — Held that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised — (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused — (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code — (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused — (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code — (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused — (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party — (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge — 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335 relied. (Para 22)
¼v½ vuqlwfpr tkfr vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼u`'kalrk fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989] /kkjk 3(1)(x) & ds vUrxZr vijk/k ds okLrs vko';d rRo & vfHk;qDr ds fo#) ;g vkjksi yxk;k x;k Fkk fd og vius ifr ds lkFk gh Fkh ftldks vkØed 'kCn cksys x;s Fks & ijUrq f'kdk;rdrkZ dk ifr ftl ds lEcU/k esa ,sls 'kCn dgs x;s Fks] ml le; vkSj ml LFkku ij] tgk¡ vkjksfir 'kCn cksys x;s crk;s x;s Fks] mifLFkr gh ugha Fkk & vkSj pw¡fd lEiw.kZ ?kVuk f'kdk;rdrkZ dh iRuh ds ?kj ij ?kVh Fkh uk fd fdlh lkoZtfud LFkku ij & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k /kkjk 3(1)(x) ds vUrxZr vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dksbZ vijk/k ugha curk gSA ¼izLrj 8 ls 12½ ¼c½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 482] Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 226 & dk iz;ksx vFkok /kkjk 482 CrPC ds vUrxZr vUrfuZfgr vf/kdkjksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEukafdr dslst dh Jsf.k;ksa dks mnkgj.kksa ds :i esa mRié fd;k x;k ftu esa ,sls vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx U;k;ky; dh izfØ;k dk nq#i;ksx gksus ls ;k rks jksdus esa iz;qDr fd;k tk ldrk Fkk ;k U;k; dks miyC/k djkus esa & fu.kZ; esa dgk x;k & ;g lEHko ugha gS fd fdlh laf{kIr] lqLi"V] ifjHkkf"kr vkSj i;kZIr :i ls izpfyr vkSj Bksl ekxZn'kZu vFkok lw= dks fn;k tk, vkSj vla[; izdkj ds dslst dh iw.kZ lwph nh tk, ftu esa ,sls vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx fd;k tkuk pkfg, & ¼1½ tgk¡ ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ;k f'kdk;rh i= esa vkjksi yxk;s x;s Fks tks vius ewy Lo:i esa ;k rks izR;{k n`"Vr;k dksbZ vijk/k dks tUe ugha nsrs vFkok vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dsl cukrs gSa & ¼2½ tgk¡ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa yxk;s x;s vkjksi vkSj vU; lcwr] tks Hkh] izkFkfedh ds lkFk layXu fd;k x;k] ls fdlh laKh; vijk/k dk irk ugha yxrk] /kkjk 156¼1½ CrPC ds vUrxZr iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ foospuk dks mfpr Bgjkus gsrq] /kkjk 155¼2½ ds vUrxZr n.Mkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k dks NksM+dj & ¼3½ tgk¡ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ;k f'kdk;rh i= esa vfojks/kkHkk"kh vkjksi yxs gksa vkSj mldh iqf"V esa ,d= fd;k x;k lk{; ls fdlh vijk/k dk ?kfVr gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS vkSj vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dsl cuk;k tk, & ¼4½ tc izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds vk/kkj ij laKh; vijk/k uk cus cfYd dsoy vlaKh; vijk/k gh cus] foospuk fd;s tkus ij iqfyl vf/kdkjh }kjk n.Mkf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds fcuk gh] tks fd /kkjk 155¼2½ esa visf{kr gS] vkKk nh tkrh gS & ¼5½ tc izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa yxk;s x;s vkjksi vFkok f'kdk;rh i= esa brus Hkn~ns gSa vkSj Lor% gh vlaHko gS ftl ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ Hkh le>nkj O;fDr fdlh mfpr fu"d"kZ ij uk igq¡p lds ftl esa i;kZIr vk/kkj vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dk;Zokgh djus dk gS & ¼6½ tgk¡ ij n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds fdlh izkfoèkku esa lqLi"V dkuwuh #dkoV gks vFkok lEcfU/kr vf/kfu;e ¼ftl ds vUrxZr vijkf/kd ekeyk nk;j fd;k x;k gS½ dk;Zokgh ds nk;j djus vkSj tkjh j[kus vkSj n.M izfØ;k lafgrk esa ;k lEcfU/kr vf/kfu;e esa dksbZ fo'ks"k izkfo/kku] izHkkodkjh lek/kku] {kqCèk i{kdkj dh f'kdk;r ds ckjs esa fn;k x;k gks & ¼7½ tgk¡ ij QkStnkjh dk;Zokgh fdlh gsrq dh flf) ds okLrs dnkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij nk;j dh xbZ gks tks fd vfHk;qDr dks gkfu igq¡pkus dh fu;r ls izkbosV vkSj O;fDrxr bZ";kZ ds dkj.k gks & 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335 ij vk/kkfjrA ¼izLrj 22½
Dalveer Bhandari, J. — Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the Headmistress in the Little Star School located at Gayatri Hills, Yousufguda, Hyderabad has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.2127 of 2006.
3. It may be pertinent to mention that her husband Mohd. Samiuddin and the appellant are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the 1989 Act’).
4. The appellant filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 50 of 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has declined to quash the proceedings.
5. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under :
A complaint was filed against the appellant and her husband Mohd. Samiuddin on 9.2.2006 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, which reads as under :
“I am to inform you that just besides my house a building bearing No.8-2-293/82/B/60, in 1+3 storeyed building, a school is being run from 1 to 10th class. I have informed the management of the school with regard to sound pollution. I have also submitted representation to the DEO, Hyderabad. Since the authorities have not taken any action in this regard, I approached the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., and obtained an interim order on 3.10.1995. While the DEO trying to implement the interim orders, the Little Star School management, Gayathri Hills, has created more sound pollution. When we were not able to stay at our houses due to sound pollution, we invited the press people and expressed our grievances on 8.2.2006. The same news was published in the Newspapers on 9.2.2006. After reading the news, the School management, Smt. Asmatunnisa and her husband namely Md. Samiuddin came to my house at 9.00 a.m., when I was not there. Md. Samiuddin abused in filthy language by naming caste and asked my wife, R. Sridevi, without even Iooking that she is a lady, that where did she sent me and also said that “AA LAMBADODU”, “Iet him come home today we will settle the matter with him”. Smt. Asmatunnisa also abused my wife. Smt. Anuradha, who is staying opposite to my house was the eye witness for the incident.” -
The significant part of this complaint is that the offending words were admittedly spoken by Mohd. Samiuddin, the husband of the appellant. He abused Sridevi’s husband in filthy language by naming caste and said that “AA LAMBADODU”, “let him come home today we will settle the matter with him.” At that time, admittedly Sridevi’s husband was not present.
6. The appellant has also been implicated because she had accompanied her husband to the house of the complainant. Admittedly, the appellant did not utter offending words. It would be relevant to set out relevant provisions of law as under:
7. Section 3 Sub-section (1) Sub-section (x) of the 1989 Act is reproduced as under:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities -(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
xxx xxx xxx
intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;”
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that:
A. According to the complaint, no offence under the aforesaid section can be made out against the appellant because the ingredients of the offence are not made out. In the complaint so called offending words were not even attributed to the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant merely accompanied her husband and the offending words were spoken by the husband of the appellant, therefore, the appellant in this appeal by no stretch of imagination can he held guilty of the offence under
2. Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
4. Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Others
6. Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others
11. Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
13. State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Others
5. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others
7. Dr. Raghubir Sharon v. State of Bihar
10. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.