Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1048

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J.
Komatireddy Venkat Reddy, S/o Late Papi Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
State of Telangana, rep.by its Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.9899 of 2014
Decided On : 15-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. N. Naveen Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, Additional and the Public Prosecutor

The court quashed proceedings against the petitioner, finding that the complaint lacked essential ingredients to constitute offences under IPC and the Atrocities Act, deeming continuation of proceedings an abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 504 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations of intentional insult and violation of protocol against an MLA - Complaint lacks essential ingredients of the offences under IPC and the Act - Continuation of proceedings deemed an abuse of process of law. (Paras 2, 10, 15, 17)

(B) Ingredients of Offence - For Section 504 IPC, intention to insult and provoke must be established - Mere allegations without independent witnesses do not suffice. (Paras 8, 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an MLA, was accused of insulting a complainant from the Madiga Community during a meeting, leading to a police complaint under IPC and the Atrocities Act. The petitioner contended that the allegations were politically motivated and lacked substance.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint did not disclose any offence under the relevant sections, as essential ingredients were absent, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process of law.

Issues: The main issues were whether the complaint disclosed any offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, and whether the continuation of proceedings was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the complaint lacked necessary elements to constitute the alleged offences, emphasizing that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not warrant prosecution.

Result: The proceedings in Crime No.104 of 2014 are quashed against the petitioner.

ORDER :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite affording ample opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.104 of 2014 of Kanagal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section - 504 of IPC and Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act, 1989’).

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime. As per the complaint of respondent No.2, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are as follows;

ii) The petitioner herein, MLA, addressed the General Body Meeting held at MPDO Office at Kanagal without following protocol and not greeted him, for which the Sarpanchas and MPTCs questioned the MLA, where the MLA insulted him intentionally as he is dalith MPP only and uttered Cheppu To Kodutha Emi Chesukuntaro Chesukondi in the presence of the Members;

iii) The MLA again insulted him by giving oral instructions to MPDO and ZPTC by violating the protocol and opened the RWS Sump by not inviting him. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary legal action against MLA/ZPTC/MPDO.

4. Basing on the aforesaid written complaint, the police have registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2014 against the petitioner herein and others for the aforesaid offences and took up for investigation.

5. Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and a false case was foisted against the petitioner with political rivalry only with an intention to harass him and to defame his reputation.

ii) In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in All Cargo Movers v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain, (2007) 14 SCC 776; State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89; Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 966 ; Asmathunisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 259; Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 ; Ravella Padmavathi v. The State of Telangana MANU/TL/0908/2022; Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763; Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44; Vikram Johar v. State of U.P., (2019) 14 SCC 207; Hiralal v. State of U.P. (2009) 11 SCC 89 and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal(2007) 12 SCC 1

6. On the other hand, Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that prima facie, the complaint discloses the ingredients of Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 and so also Section - 504 of IPC. There is neither political rivalry nor false implication of the petitioner as alleged by him. The Investigating Officer has to investigate into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and it is premature to consider the request of the petitioner.

7. In view of the said rival contentions, it is apt to extract Section - 504 of IPC.

“504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document