HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.14648 of 2013 Date: 17-6-2014 Between Avinash and 2 others … Petitioners/ Accused 1 to 3 and The State of A.P., Through the Public Prosecutor of the High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent Smt. K.Damayanthi … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.14648 of 2013 Order:
The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.232 of 2013 on the file of Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad. A complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners committed offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the SCs/STs Act, for short) as well as under Section 509 IPC. FIR was issued by Police. Assailing the same, the present petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR.
2. It may be noticed at the outset that the investigation is in progress. When the investigation is in progress in respect of a serious offence like an offence under the provisions of the SCs/STs Act, it may not be appropriate to smother the investigation at the threshold.
3. Be it noted that it is the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners abused Manimma and A.Venkatamma with reference to their community and that the petitioners thus committed an offence under the provisions of the SCs/STs Act. The 2nd respondent does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
Her complaint is in respect of the abuse against Manimma and Venkatamma. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, raised an objection that the 2nd respondent has no locus standi to file a criminal complaint in respect of the injury sustained by third parties. Section 39 Cr.P.C envisages that every person who is aware of the commission of a cognizable offence shall furnish information to Police. I n R.Mallaiah v.
Deputy Inspector General, Nizamabad & Medak
[1]
District Range , this Court observed that the question of
locus does not arise when the complaint was lodged by
a person who allegedly employed the victims in connection with agricultural work.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners however submitted that the 2nd respondent has nothing to do with the alleged victims and that she consequently has no locus to file this complaint. Apart from Section 39 Cr.P.C a n d R.Mallaiah (supra), the complaint reveals that the petitioner had a common cause along with the victims and consequently she went to the office of the petitioners along with the victims to make a representation.
Thus, the complainant-2nd respondent has enough connection with the victims, so much so, the complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground that the 2nd respondent has no locus to file the complaint.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further submitted that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs/STs Act has not been made out. Admittedly, there must be insult to the victim in a public place to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs/STs Act. While so, the reading of the complaint shows that the victims and the 2nd respondent went to the house of the petitioners. It is not averred anywhere in the complaint that the incident occurred in a public place or public view. Added to it, it was stated that the victims and the 2nd respondent went to the house of the petitioners. Obviously, ‘house’ is not a public place and anything that happened in the house cannot be considered to be an incident in public view. Consequently, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs/STs Act is concerned, prima facie the offence is not made out from the complaint.
6. However, complaint prima facie makes out an offence under Section 509 IPC as the complaint avers that the petitioners insulted the modesty of the victims through their behavior. Consequently, the offence under Section 509 IPC is prima facie made out.
7. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed in part. The FIR in Crime No.232 of 2013 is quashed so far as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs/STs Act. The petition to quash the FIR in respect of the offence under Section 509 IPC is rejected. Police are permitted to proceed with the investigation of FIR in Crime No.232 of 2013 on the file of Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad so far as the offence under Section 509 IPC is concerned. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
17th June, 2014.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.14648 of 2013 17th June, 2014. (Ak)
[1] 2008 (4) ALT 626