HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.6129 of 2013 Date: 15-7-2014 Between Bokka Suryanarayanamma … Petitioner/ Accused No.3 and State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Vunnamatla Manikyam … Respondent … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.6129 of 2013 Order:
The petitioner is accused No.3 in P.R.C.No.11 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.
She was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 506(2) and 354 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(iii), (x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the SCs/STs Act, for short). She claimed that this case was foisted against her and sought for its quashment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Satya Lakshmi, daughter of the petitioner/accused No.3, had disputes with her husband Petchetti Surya Narayana. She lodged a complaint against him which was registered as First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.18 of 2011 under Section 498-A, IPC by Penugonda Police. She also filed M.C.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku and O.P.No.53 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku for restitution of her conjugal rights.
3. The 2nd respondent is said to be a neighbour of Petchetti Surya Narayana, son-in-law of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint which was registered as FIR in Crime No.30 of 2011 of Veeravasaram Police Station and that Police referred the same as false.
It is submitted that the present private complaint is laid by the 2nd respondent as her earlier complaint was referred as false.
4. The 2nd respondent lodged a complaint claiming that she was a maid-servant in the house of Petchetti Kondayya and that on 09-02-2011, the 2nd respondent was guarding the house when Kondayya went to China Tirupathi on pilgrimage. She further contended that various accused including the petitioner came to the house of Kondayya during his absence and tried to enter the house. When she resisted the same, the petitioner allegedly caught hold the tuft of the 2nd respondent and pulled her aside. That apart, all the accused allegedly threatened the 2nd respondent and abused her with reference to her community. Be it noted that the 2nd respondent is a member of the Schedule Caste.
5. The averments in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences under the provisions of the SCs/STs Act as well as under Sections 506(2) and 323 IPC so far as the petitioner is concerned.
As the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent are women, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of the 2nd respondent. I therefore hold that the petitioner failed to show that any case is made out against her, whereas she is able to establish that case under Section 354 IPC against her is not sustainable.
6. Consequently, this criminal petition is allowed in part. P.R.C.No.11 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram so far as the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned, is quashed so far as the offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned. The Trial Court may proceed with the rest of the offences against the petitioner. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
15th July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.6129 of 2013 15th July, 2014. (Ak)