THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13473 of 2010 15-10-2014 BETWEEN:
S.Nageshwara Rao & another AND …..petitioners The State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.13473 of 2010 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by A.1 & A.2 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.25 of 2004 pending on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ellur for the offences under Sections 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
At the relevant time, petitioner No.1-A.1 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanuku Rural and petitioner No.2-A.2 was working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Tanuku. A.3 is Proprietor of Ramakrishna Cine Theatre at Duvva village and belongs to Kapu community. In the year 1984, the revenue authorities under a scheme of Social Welfare Department, have allotted house site pattas to the scheduled caste people in Duvva village. In the year 1994, A.3 got obtained two house site pattas to his close relatives who belongs to Kapu community allegedly under the influence of A.3. In this connection, the matter was brought to the notice of L.W.1-complainant (2nd respondent herein) being S.C. leader, who is resident of same village and working as Junior Accountant in Government Printing Press at Hyderabad. Then L.W.1-complainant pursued the matter and got cancelled the said two house site pattas, which were allotted to the relatives of A.3. Hence, A.2 and A.3 developed grudge against L.W.1. While so, on 15.5.1995 two groups of SC community people in Kothamalapalli village, who are supporters and opposition groups of A.3 clashed with one another and in this connection, a case was registered in Crime No.40 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 148, 452, 324 r/w 149 IPC of Tanuku Rural Police Station, to which A.1 was Sub-Inspector of Police. Initially, in the F.I.R., the name of L.W.1 was not mentioned. Later, A.3 taking advantage of the case, colluded with A.2 and both of them instigated A.1 and all the three conspired and implicated L.W.1 and his younger brother as accused in the said rioting case. Later at the instigation and recommendation of A.2, the fair price shop dealership of father of L.W.1 was also suspended by the Sub-Collector, Kovvur. Due to the said humiliation and harassment, on the representation made by L.W.1, Government issued two separate G.Os. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 11.1.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.562, dt.20.2.2000 to take legal action against A.1 to A.3. On the basis of said G.Os. a case in Crime No.23 of 2003 was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and cognizance of offence was taken by the Magistrate in P.R.C.No.25 of 2004 for the offence under Section 3(i),(viii),(ix) and (2) and (3)(vii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for second respondent-complainant. Perused the material brought on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enquiry officer appointed by the Government to find out the issue whether the complainant herein was falsely implicated in Crime No.40 of 1995 did not specifically reveal in his report that it was a case of atrocity and that it was a false case foisted against the second respondent herein. In fact, the report clearly indicates that the second petitioner had not committed any irregularity or illegality. Further the allegations made against the petitioners are arising during the course of discharge of duties of the petitioners as public servant and as such prior sanction is required.
The point for consideration is whether the pendency of case against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law?
This court considered the following facts for determining the issue.
(1) Originally, a case was registered against the de facto complainant by the petitioner-A.1 being investigating officer on the basis of complaint given by the persons, who belong to the same village. (2) It is to be noticed that the offences alleged in the complaint are under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but the fact remains that originally, a case was registered on the basis of a clash between two groups of persons those who belong to same community more particularly, Scheduled Caste members.
In the present case, it is the grievance of the complainant-second respondent that his name was also included as an accused at the time of filing of charge sheet even though he was not present at the place of occurrence. Aggrieved over the same, he filed a representation to the Government of A.P. and in turn, a detailed enquiry was ordered and as per the report given by the enquiry officer, the statement recorded by the petitioner No.1-A.1 was found to be false and hence, the Government passed an order to withdraw the earlier case against the second respondent- complainant vide G.O.Rt.No.4047, Home Department, dated 27.12.1996.
Later, after reinstatement into service, the complainant herein made a representation to the Government for prosecution of the petitioners herein for implicating him in false case. Basing on the said representation, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare (POA.1) Department, dated 11.1.2000 and G.O.Rt.No.562, Social Welfare (POA.1) Department, dated 20.11.2000 for initiation of prosecution against the petitioners herein for the atrocities committed against the complainant herein. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners herein filed W.P.Nos.25527 and 24608 of 2000 before this Court. This Court by order dated 6.1.2003 disposed of the said writ petitions with the following observations:
“In view of the same, the impugned order to the extent of directing initiation of prosecution against the petitioners cannot be sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. However, it is made clear that on completion of investigation by the Inspector General of Police (PCR Cell) if it reveals commission of offence, necessary charge sheet can be filed before the appropriate court as per law and on such filing of charge sheet, it is open for the petitioners to appear before the learned Sessions Judge before whom the charge sheet is filed and can place all the material available in support of their case to prove their innocence. Till the case is finally disposed of, the petitioners shall not be arrested.”
Thereafter after completion of investigation, the Government in exercise of power under Section 197 Cr.P.C. accorded sanction for prosecution by issuing G.O.Ms.No.418, dated 26.3.2004 and G.O.Ms.No.231, dated 4.3.2004 for the petitioners 1 and 2 respectively. Subsequently, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the petitioners herein on 31.3.2004.
It is to be noted that the act of the first petitioner-A.1, who is an investigating officer was based on the complaint lodged by the aggrieved person and during his investigation, it reveals that number of persons deposed before the investigating officer about the part played by the complainant-second respondent herein. Merely because withdrawal of the case by the Government against the complainant herein vide G.O.Rt.No.4047, Home Department, dated 27.12.1996, which is prior to examination of the witnesses by the first petitioner herein would not amount to an acquittal. Further the statement of the said witness was not subjected to examination by a competent Court and no trial was conducted to find out the truth or otherwise of the statement of the said witness, who implicated the complainant in this case. It is unfortunate to note that in such a circumstance, since because of withdrawal of the complaint by the officials concerned, without there being any legal process, merely on the basis of another investigating agency’s report, impugned proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioners for the offences stated above.
As far as the second petitioner-A.2 is concerned, it is only a bare allegation by the complainant herein that he being the Mandal Revenue Officer instigated and colluded with the investigating officer-A.1 and that necessitated the investigating officer to implicate him in a case, which was subsequently withdrawn by the Government. Except the self allegation made by the complainant-second respondent herein, there is no other evidence to proceed against the petitioners herein. It is true that number of cases and various litigations are pending between the complainant and second petitioner-A.2. That itself is not a ground to presume that A.2 is the person, who is behind the prosecution initiated against the complainant. In any event, this Court is of the view that since because of the allegations and counter allegations, without there being any iota of evidence on record, it is highly unsafe to continue the proceedings against the petitioners for the offences alleged. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. To attract the said offences, there should be specific instances and incidents and also there should be evidence on record to show that the case was initiated on the ground that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and taking advantage of the same, such a process is initiated by the petitioners herein. The entire perusal of the record does not disclose any such incident except the self-serving statement of the complainant that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. Hence, this Court is of the view that continuation of impugned proceedings against the petitioners herein is abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in P.R.C.No.25 of 2004 pending on the file of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Eluru are hereby quashed as against the petitioners herein.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 15.10.2014 Tsr