Criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot arise from a private civil dispute without sufficient evidence of caste-based intent in the allegations.

ORDER :

Juvvadi Sridevi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in SPL.S.C.No.109 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short ‘the learned trial Court’), registered for the offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’).

2. Heard Sri Avadesh Narayana Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Even after service of the notice, none appeared on behalf the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3(a). The brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2021, the petitioner-accused, who is the proprietor of Gokul Industries situated at Industrial Park, Sy.No.21/4, Dasnapur, Adilabad, approached the complainant and informed him that the premises of his industry and godown were vacant, and requested the complainant to conduct a New Year event therein. Accordingly, the complainant submitted a representation on 02.12.2021 to the petitioner- accused. In this context, on 03.12.2021, the petitioner- accused issued a letter permitting the complainant to conduct the event on 31.12.2021. Relying upon the said permission, the complainant invested an amount of more than Rs.9,80,000/- towards the arrangements for the event, including engaging an orchestra group from Warangal and Nagpur, and undertaking decoration of the stages with truss, lights, screens, power generators, chairs, barricades, flex boards, etc. However, when the police refused to grant permission for the event, the complainant visited the premises of the petitioner-accused and requested that he be allowed to remove the materials brought by him so that he could shift them to another venue.

3(b). It is alleged that the petitioner-accused grew wild and abused the complainant in filthy language, stating that “Badakau Gand Me Dhum Nahi Hai, Aukath Nahi Hai to Kayku Program Karte Re, Harami Kutte, ek lakh rupee de tabhi saman leke ja, SC Mahar ke bache, Gand Podtu,” and further threatened him with dire consequences of killing him. The complainant pleaded with the petitioner-accused, stating that he had suffered heavy financial loss and was unable to pay any amount.

3(c). It is alleged that the petitioner-accused made caste-based abuses in the presence of other persons who had gathered there for the New Year event. The incident is stated to have occurred on 31.12.2021 between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in the presence of more than 25 persons. Hence, the complainant filed the present private complaint.

4(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is contended that the police complaint was lodged belatedly on 04.01.2022, after an unexplained delay of three days from the date of the alleged incident, and that the private complaint was subsequently filed on 02.02.2022, nearly one month thereafter, again without any explanation for such delay. It is further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner-accused and the complainant pertains solely to issues arising out of the proposed conduct of the New Year event, which is purely civil in nature. However, the learned trial Court proceeded to take cognizance without appreciating this aspect. It is submitted that the petitioner-accused had never intended to humiliate the complainant on the basis of caste, and that the averments made in the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients required to attract the alleged offences.

4(b). With the above submissions, while praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused, he relie