Allowed

Valluru Raja Sekhar Reddy, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Feb 2023CRLP/5298/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a criminal petition, examined the maintainability of an FIR registered under the SC/ST Act regarding alleged abuse during a phone call. The Court held that a telephonic conversation cannot constitute an offence if it does not take place in public view or involve public exposure, quashing the proceedings as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed; the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in F.I.R.No.326/2020 are quashed; all pending applications shall stand closed.

Valluru Raja Sekhar Reddy, Vs the State of Andhra… — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5298 of 2020

¶3

Between:-

¶4

Valluru Raja Sekhar Reddy …. Petitioner/Accused

¶5

And

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

¶7

Penubala Vijaya Kumar ….. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.I.Koti Reddy Counsel for the 1^st Respondent : Learned Public Prosecutor Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent : Mr.V.Nitish ORDER :

¶8

Heard Mr.I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent-State and Mr.V.Nitish, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant.

¶9

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash F.I.R.No.326/2020 on the file of the Chinnachowk Police Station, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa District, registered against the petitioner, pursuant to a complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act ”).

¶10

¶11

Mr.I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel referring to the complaint dated 31.10.2020, inter alia submitted that the petitioner was retired from service on 31.10.2019 as Chief General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Vijayawada Area Office and no offence was committed by him, as alleged by the 2^nd respondent. He contended that the allegations in the complaint would not constitute any offence against the petitioner under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Elaborating the arguments, the learned counsel submits that from a reading of the complaint, it is evident that the 2^nd respondent/complainant himself made telephone to the petitioner and introduced himself as SC Leader, the alleged incident was not happened in public view and therefore continuation of Criminal proceedings constitutes abuse of process of Law. He also submits that no reasons are assigned for lodging the complaint on 31.10.2020 though the incident allegedly occurred on 16.10.2020 and that itself indicates that the complaint is without any basis and lacking in bona fides. Relying on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.04.2022 in Crl.P.No.321 of 2015, the learned counsel seeks to quash the F.I.R registered against the petitioner/accused.

¶12

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant opposed the said submissions, inter alia, contending that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and have to be investigated into by the

¶13

¶14

police. They further contended that the relief as prayed for cannot be granted and the only intention of the petitioner is to pre-empt the investigation agency from investigating into the offence and thereby adjudication of the matter by the competent Criminal Court. They further contend that the petitioner/accused will have ample opportunity to prove his innocence during the course of Trial and in view of the prima facie accusations, interference by this Court at the stage of investigation, much less, in the absence of any valid grounds, is not warranted. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents urges for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

¶15

Before dealing with the rival contentions, it may be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the complaint dated 31.10.2020 for better appreciation of factual and legal position.

¶16

“……… With a very good objective intention to discuss the issue, I called Sri Rajasekhar Reddy on phone on 16-102020, I introduce myself as an SC Leader and enquired very politely his role in instigating some people to demoralize the present officer Sri L.P.Fulzele, Deputy General Manager. To my astonishment Sri Rajasekhar Reddy started abusing me by Caste name and started challenging me, addressing me with abusive language and saying “EMI RAA, NANNEM PEEKUTHAV NUVVU, NORU MUY VEDHAVA and further with some filthy language.

¶17

It is also learnt that while Sri Rajsekhar Reddy was in service as Chief Area Manager, he harassed many SC Distributors and deliberately disobeyed SC officers if any, and also resorted to bribery. His disproportionate assets will prove his corrupt activities once enquiry is done.

¶18

I request you sir, to enquire and take appropriate lawful action against Sri Rajsekhar Reddy, who used abusive language mentioning my Caste name, threatening and challenging me with filthy utterances.”

¶19

¶20

From a reading of the contents of the complaint, it is obvious that the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant introduced himself by calling the petitioner/accused over phone. In such an event, the allegation that the petitioner started abusing the 2^nd respondent by Caste name would to the

¶21

mind of this Court appears to be improbable, inasmuch as, the 2^nd respondent/de facto has not disclosed his Caste name, as seen from the complaint. Further, the contents of the complaint do not disclose that the 2^nd respondent was abused by the petitioner before the public or in any other place within public view. To attract the offence under Section

¶22

3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, there should be intention or insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe by Caste name, in any place within public view.

¶23

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent Judgment in Hitesh Verma

¶24

vs. State of Uttarakhand & another¹ while reiterating the legal

¶25

position at Para 14 held as follows:-

¶26

“14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the

¶27

1 2020 (10) SCC 710

¶28

¶29

contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)

¶30

“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” (emphasis in original)

¶31

¶32

In the instant case, as seen from the complaint, there is no allegation that when the 2^nd respondent/de facto complainant called the petitioner over phone, some people were present at that time and at that place. Further, there is no allegation that the so-called abusive language let alone with reference to the Caste name of the 2^nd respondent was used in a place within public view. It is only a telephonic conversation even according to the 2^nd respondent and a reading of the complaint and the allegations therein on their face value would not attract the ingredients of the offence registered against the petitioner.

¶33

In Crl.P.No.321 of 2015 on which reliance is placed, the learned Judge of this Court was dealing with a case, wherein the facts are more or less, similar to the present case. The learned Judge while quashing the F.I.R registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act at Para 15 held as follows:-

¶34

“15. In the case on hand, it is not the case of 2^nd respondent-defacto complainant that when the telephonic conversation was taking place, there were people present at that place. It is also not his case that the discussion that went on between 2^nd respondent-defacto complainant has been over-heard by the public at large. There are absolutely no averments in respect of the discussion that took place between the petitioner-accused and 2^nd respondent-complainant. A reading of the contents in the First Information Report goes to show that no words have been uttered by the petitioner-accused to humiliate 2^nd respondent-defacto complainant that he belongs to such caste, and except stating that the accused used unparliamentary language, nothing has been stated in the First Information Report so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner abused 2^nd respondent-defacto complainant by his caste. In the absence of any averments to that effect, mere conversation over phone would not in any way come within the purview of the offence under the provisions of the Act, 1989.”

¶35

¶36

As noted supra, in the complaint lodged against the petitioner, there is no reference to abuse of the 2^nd respondent specifically with reference to Caste, much less, in any place within public view. Therefore, in the light of the conclusions arrived at with reference to the contents of the complaint and the decisions referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case can be made out against the petitioner and it is a fit case to invoke powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would tantamount to abuse of process of Law.

¶37

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in F.I.R.No.326/2020 on the file of the Chinnachowk Police Station, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa District are quashed. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶38

________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Date: 16.02.2023

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶43

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5298 of 2020

¶44

Date: 16.02.2023