ORDER :

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.SPL-Session Case-SC/ST No.42 of 2019 dt.30.09.2019 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for SC/ST Cases at Secunderabad. The petitioner herein is accused in the said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Section 506 of the Indian Penal code and Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.

3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint on 25.03.2017 stating that he was working as Supervisor of Pranav Group at HSEL (Hyderabad Stock Exchange Limited) Building, Erramanzil, Hyderabad; that while he was at the building, three persons entered into the premises. When questioned, one of them who allegedly was the petitioner, informed that he was the owner of the building and came to take photographs of the building. The 2nd respondent requested to come back with the company’s permission. On that the petitioner asked the name of the 2nd respondent who informed that he was ‘Naresh Madiga’. Without wearing safety helmets, the petitioner and two others went inside the building and took photographs. While coming outside, the petitioner allegedly abused the 2nd respondent stating that “Madiga Lanjakodukullara meeru ela Panichestharo chustha mee anthu chustha”.

5. On the basis of the complaint, the police investigated the case and also sought explanation from the petitioner by giving a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. In response to the said notice, the petitioner replied that he is the Director of Hyderabad Securities and Enterprises Limited (Erstwhile Hyderabad Stock Exchange Limited) and he had rights to inspect the company’s property; and that he along with two others went inside the building to take photographs of the building to be submitted before the NCLT where proceedings were pending.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case is filed deliberately to intimidate the petitioner from intimating to the NCLT regarding the violation of its orders dt.22.03.2017. He further states that the petitioner is a Hindi speaking person and does not know Telugu language, as such the question of uttering words abusing the 2nd respondent in the name of caste does not arise. He further submits that the 2nd respondent has mentioned his name as ‘Naresh Madiga’, where as in the charge sheet, the police mentioned as “Madiga Mala Lanja Kodukullara meeretla untaru, ikkada etla untaro chustha”, which reflects the bias nature of the investigation by the Police Officer, since during the investigation it was found that the 2nd respondent belonged to ‘Mala’ community.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to quash the proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as there were civil disputes amongst the parties and further held that any insult or intimidation to a person would not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimation is on account of the victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

8. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 and in Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.766 of 2011 and argued that when the utterance of the words is not within the public view the offence is not attracted.

9. On the other hand learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that prima facie case is made out under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe