THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8416 of 2012 Date:13.08.2014 Between:
Upplapati Sriramulu and others.
. Petitioners.
AND The State of A.P., rep by Station House Officer, Tandur, Tandur Mandal, Guntur District, A.P., its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8416 of 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash First Information Report in Crime No.67/2012 of T. Sundur Police Station, Guntur District for alleged offence under Section 3 (1) (iv) and 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:- Second respondent herein and four others on behalf of 120 villagers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities gave a complaint to police alleging that the petitioners knowing that Tahsildar revised the plots and found that there are 76 ineligible candidates in the earlier allotment of pattas and recommended 90 eligible persons belonging to Scheduled Castes to give those plots and knowing that ineligible 76 persons submitted a memorandum to Joint Collector, Guntur on 15-10-2010 requesting not to cancel the pattas in their favour and that caused mental agony to the second respondent and other beneficiaries and thereby, the petitioners are liable to be punished under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1989’). Questioning the same, petitioners, who are A1 to A10 in the above referred crime, filed present petition to quash the same on the ground that ingredients of Section 3 (1) (iv) and 3 (1) (x) of Act, 1989 are not at all attracted.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for petitioners submitted that all the petitioners belong to backward community and except first petitioner, all other petitioners were granted house site pattas to their respective wives by the Government having found that they are eligible for house site pattas and as such wives of petitioners 2 to 10 are the beneficiaries, who are among the 181 plot holders. It is submitted that this was happened in the year 1999. According to complaint, in the month of April 2012 on the application of 120 Scheduled Caste candidates and 10 Scheduled Tribe candidates, an enquiry was conducted in which it was found out of 181 persons, 76 persons are ineligible and on that, a revised layout was prepared and sent to Collector by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 29-08-2012 and having come to know, those ineligible persons submitted application on 15-10-2012 and that caused mental agony to them, which attracts the provisions of Act 1989. He submitted that even if the entire complaint is accepted in toto, the allegations would no way attract any of the provisions referred in the F.I.R and therefore, continuation of such F.I.R., would amount to abuse of process of Court. He submitted that there is no notification proposing allotment of any plots to the complainants or the other supporters of the complainants and no prima facie material is there to attract the ingredients of the provisions of Act 1989. He submitted that as on the date of F.I.R., wives of petitioners are patta holders and the patta in their names is not yet cancelled and without cancelling, there cannot be any notification proposing allotment of the very same plots to the second respondent and other beneficiaries.
He submitted that the present F.I.R is nothing but abuse of process of Court in order to harass the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, Advocate for second respondent submitted that the lands were allotted in the year 1999 and the Tahsildar, after knowing that there are some ineligible candidates among the 181 beneficiaries got the layout revised on 27-08-2012 suggesting allotment of land for 90 eligible Scheduled Caste members including complainants as such there is a proposal to be allotted to the members of Scheduled Castes and obstructing the same would amount to an offence under Section 3 (1) (iv) of the Act, 1989. He submitted that the petitioners instigated and provoked the 76 plot holders, who are declared as ineligible to occupy the land proposed for complainants and other 89 eligible persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and the correctness of these aspects would come to light only if a thorough investigation is conducted, therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. He further submitted that the acts of accused namely attempt to occupy the plots proposed for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes clearly attracts provisions of Act 1989, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Now the point that would arise my consideration is whether the First Information Report in Crime No.67/2012 of T. Sundur Police Station is liable to be quashed or not?
7. Admittedly, Government allotted plots to 181 persons in the year 1999 by preparing a layout and pattas were also issued to those 181 beneficiaries. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, on the representation of some of the villagers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, matter was enquired into, which revealed that there are 76 ineligible persons out of 181 beneficiaries and the Tahsildar suggested for revised layout. According to petitioners, complaint averments do not attract any of the offences for which F.I.R is registered. On the other hand, it is the contention of second respondent that acts of petitioners caused mental agony to the second respondent and other 120 persons belonging to Scheduled Caste attracting the provisions of Act, 1989. Police registered F.I.R for two offences under the Act, 1989; one is under Section 3 (1) (iv) and the other is under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. To appreciate the submissions of both sides, I feel it is necessary to read these two provisions.
8. Section 3 (1) (iv) of the Act, 1989, which reads as follows:-
“3. Punishment for offences of atrocities :- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
(iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred ;
9. Section 3 (1) (x) of Act, 1989 reads as follows:-
“ (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.”
10. Firstly, I shall consider Section 3 (1) (x). A plain reading of above provision would disclose to attract an offence under this section, one should intentionally insult or intimidate with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. On an entire reading of the complaint, there is no whisper or allegation attributing anything to the petitioners that they have intentionally with an intention to humiliate the second respondent or the other 120 members insulted them in a place within public view. There is not even an io ta of whisper attracting the ingredients of this section. So as rightly pointed out by Advocate for petitioners even if the entire complaint is accepted in toto, the averments would no way attract this penal provision. So there is absolutely no material attracting ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of Act 1989.
11. Now coming to other offence to attract this, the accused persons must wrongfully occupy or cultivate any land owned by or allotted to or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Admittedly, the land in question is not owned by the second respondent or the other 120 members belonging to Scheduled Caste. It is also not in dispute by the date of F.I.R., this land in dispute was not allotted to the second respondent or the other members belonging to Scheduled Caste. According to second respondent, since the Tahsildar submitted a proposal suggesting revision of layout, making the land into 212 plots to be allotted to 90 eligible families belonging to Scheduled Caste and knowing that the petitioners have submitted a representation to the Joint Collector opposing the same and that caused mental agony, which attracts the above referred provision.
As rightly pointed out by Advocate for petitioners to attract the provisions under Section 3 (1) (iv) of Act, 1989, there must be notification from competent authority proposing allotment of some land or plot to the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and knowing that if the petitioners wrongfully occupies or gets the land allotted him or transferred, then only this penal provision would attract. From the material, it is clear that by the date of this letter of Tahsildar, dated 29-08-2012, the proposed plots stands in the name of wives of petitioners as per the earlier allotment. By this date, the earlier allotment in favour of the family members of the petitioners not cancelled. It is not as though, the petitioners are totally strangers and no way connected with the disputed land. On the other hand, they are patta holders as per the earlier allotment made by the Government. Admittedly, competent authority is the District Collector to make allotment or grant of pattas. There is no notification from the District Collector by the date of F.I.R., proposing allotment of these plots in favour of second respondent and other persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. As on the date of F.I.R., it is only at proposal stage that too proposal is to cancel earlier pattas granted to beneficiaries belonging to other category weaker sections, therefore, as rightly pointed out by the Advocate for petitioners even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted in toto, they do not attract even this provision, because there is no notification from the competent authority proposing allotment of these plots in favour of members belonging to Scheduled Caste.
[1]
12. I n State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal , Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down seven categories of cases, in which, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised. The first category of case as per Bhajanlal’s case is “where the allegation made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, such proceedings have to be quashed by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” The present case on hand squarely falls under the first category of Bhajanlal’s case, because even if the entire allegations in the complaint are accepted in toto, they do not attract the provisions of Section 3 (1) (iv) and Section 3 (1) (x) of Act, 1989, for which offences, F.I.R is registered.
13. I n Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P., and others Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482
[2]
, Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.”
14. As already observed above in the entire complaint, there is no material attracting the ingredients of provisions of Act 1989 and continuation of F.I.R in such cases would amount to abuse of process of Court. In the above referred decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that to prevent abuse of process of Court, the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be exercised. Considering the material on record and the guidelines formulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal’s case and also the requirements for attracting offences under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah’s case, I am of the view that this is a fit case where proceedings have to be quashed since continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.
15. For these reasons, petition is allowed and the F.I.R in Crime No.67/2012 of T. Sundur Police Station is hereby quashed.
16. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand disposed of.
Date:13.08.2014 mrb
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
[1] AIR 1992 SC 604 : SCR Supl. (3) 259 [2]
2009 (2) ALT( Crl.) 249 (SC)