Dismissed

M.Shaikshavali v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Nov 2023CRLP/6225/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court rejected arguments that the incident lacked 'public view', involved delay, or stemmed from a civil dispute, holding that the shock and alarm test was satisfied and specific threats justified prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 6225 of 2019 dismissed without costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

M.Shaikshavali Vs State of Ap — Caste Atrocities | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ;; AMARAVATI FRIDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶4

r.RIMINAL PETITION No: 6225 OF 2019

¶5

Between:

¶6

M. Abdul Aziz Saheb, Aged about 50 years, Business,

¶7

1. M. Shaikshavali, S/o. late , , n NO 21/224/17 SKD Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District.

¶8

1. ? Mohammed Ishaq,, S/o, T. Khalandar Sab, Aged about^{31years,Business} H No 13/2 Kaqazwadi Street, Adoni, Kurnool District. M. Abdul Aziz Saheb, Aged about 42 years. Business,

¶9

1. M. S. Fayaz,, S/o. late , r^. . ■ . H.No. 83/1, Saibaba Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.1 to 3

¶11

AND

¶12

1 estate of A P Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High^{CourtatAmaravathi.} 2. Smt. Vara Lakshmi Madiga,, W/o. late Chinna Eranna,^{Agedabout65years,} H.No. 26/38, Kowdal Pet, Adoni, Kurnool District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{CriminalPetition,the} High Court may be pleased to quash Proceedings against^the petitioners i SC/ST SC No 100 Of 2019 on the file of the Court of^{SpecialJudgeforTr} easel under SC's and ST's (POA) Act -cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

482 of Cr.P.C is filed praying that in the Petition under Section circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{CriminalPetitiori,the} High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further P™“®f'"9Vcase s Under No 100 Of 2019 on the file of the Court of Spl. Judge^{forTralOfCase} SC's and ST's (POA) Act-Cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sn Btitta Vjaya Bhasker Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public^{Prosecutoronbehalfofth} Respondent No.1 and of Sri. K. Sita Ram, Advocate for^{theRespondentNo.2.}

¶17

The Court made the following Order:

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6225 OF 2019

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

The Sub Divisional Police Office, Adoni has laid the charge sheet under Section 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3(l)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) New Amendment Act, 2015^(for short the Act) to punish the petitioners-accused which was numbered as SC/ST S.C. No. 100/2019 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of the Cases under the SCs, STs (PoA)^Act-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Kumool. The charge sheet^contains following allegations against the petitioners herein.

¶22

That the 2"^ respondent-Defacto Complainant owned a house at Kowdalpeta, Adoni Town in an extent of Ac.5.04^cents at Virupapuram Village. The 2"'^ respondent has obtained an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as loan from A1 to A3 who are^the petitioners herein by mortgaging her upper portion house admeasuring 2 'h cents. On 31.01.2019 at about 12 hours^LWl went to the house of the accused along with LWs 2 and^3who

¶23

¶24

are daughter-in-laws of LWl, and asked the accused to receive the loan amount and release the house from mortgage, but the accused all of a sudden behaved rudely towards LWs 1 to 3 and accused keep their eyes on the valuable land of LWl to an extent of 2 Va cents in Survey No.218/A at Virupapuram Grampanchayat and also along with their innocence hatched a plan to grab the said valuable land along with the house which mortgaged by the LWl and without the knowledge of the LWl incorporated the land in mortgage agreement along with house, m order to scare LWl to 3 , the accused 1 to 3 abused them by naming their caste Madiga Lanjallara, Madiga Gadudullara,Mudallara so saying pushed them up to the gate of the house and caught hold of their neck and threatened them with dire consequences that they would ready even to kill. Meanwhile, LWs 4 and 5 came there, intervened and extricated LWs 1 to 3 from the clutches of accused and the accused also warned LWs 4 and 5 not to interfere into their personal affairs. After due deliberations with the elders, LWl lodged a report in Adoni 11 town Police Station on 17.02.2019 at 12.30 hours.

¶25

¶26

The said Charge sheet was taken on file by the learned Sessions Court and the same has been assailed in the present Criminal Petition vociferously contending that the ingredients of the Act has no application as (i) the incident was^{notoccurredin} the public view, (ii) there is a delay in lodging the FIR, and (iii) there is a civil dispute in between the petitioners^andthe victims; and in order to bring the said civil dispute^intocriminal with an ulterior motive by abusing the Act the complainant^has lodged a report to the police and the police without proper investigation has laid charge sheet. Therefore, urged to quash proceedings in S.C./S.T. S.C.No. 100/2019 on the file of the Special Sessions Court for Trial of the Cases under^theS.Csand S.Ts (PoA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

¶27

Despite service of notice on one of the respondents, no appearance was made on behalf of the 2^^ respondent-Defacto Complainant.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and learned counsel from the office of the Public Prosecutor

¶29

appearing for the 1®^ respondent.

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that^the incident was occurred in the house of the accused within^the four corners of the house of the accused, as such there is no public view as contemplated under the Act. Therefore,^praysto quash the proceedings under the Act. He relied on the judgment of the Common High Court in P. Anand Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another^, wherein the HonlDle Supreme Court has interpreted the public view^under Section 3(l)(x) of the Act, in the following manner; “31. There cannot be any dispute that the offence can be committed in any place whether it is a private place or a public place but the same should be within the public view. The requirement of “public view” can be satisfied even if the incident takes place in a private place where the public are present. Therefore, expression public view” under section 3(l)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the incident taking place in the presence of public persons who should be the persons not having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant.

¶32

2013 LawSuit(AP) 653 Dated 04.10.2013 in Crl.P. No.2786^of2013 \

¶33

¶34

Therefore, the provisions of section 3(l)(x) of^the Act would get attracted only when an alleged incident occurs in any place within public view. In view of^the interpretation given to the said provision, it can safely be said that section 3(1 (x) of the Act gets attracted only when the incident takes place either in a private place or in public place but the same should be in public view.

¶35

In the case relied on by the petitioners, the incident^was occurred in the house and in the presence of two of their common friend. As per the interpretation of the Apex^Court referred supra, the incident must took-place in the presence of public persons who should not have close relationship or association with the complainant. 8. In Anand Rao’s case referred supra witnesses are known to both the complainant and accused, hence, on the said premise the Criminal Petition was allowed as the incident^was not occurred in the public view. And the 2"^ ground on which the Criminal Petition is allowed is that the persons^who are present at the time of the incident at the house of^accusedare not challenged by the 2’^^ respondent, the Defacto Complainant

¶36

¶37

therein. On the aforesaid two grounds the Criminal^Petitionwas allowed.

¶38

In the present case, LWs 1 to 3 who are the mother^and children were dragged from the house to the gate and pushed them up to the gate and the same was witnessed by LW^4and LW 5. The incident was occurred in the place within the public view. It can be safely held that the act would get^attractedin the present case as it was happened in the public place^andin the public view.

¶39

The other contention raised by the petitioners is that^there is a delay in lodging the FIR. Admittedly, the incident was happened on 31.01.2019 and after due deliberations^with the elders, LWl gave report to the police on 17.02.2019. The incident was placed before the elders. Though there is a delay. still it can be explained by the prosecution during^thecourseof the trial by leading evidence and as held by the HonT^le Apex Court in catena of judgments, the delay in lodging^theFIRisnot a ground to quash the proceedings, as the delay can be explained during the course of trial.

¶40

¶41

The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is a civil dispute in between the petitioners and the victim family and which dragged the civil dispute into criminal.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused relied on the judgment of HonT)le Apex Court in B. Venkateswamn and others V. P. Bakthavatchalam^, wherein the HonTole Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings on the ground that there is a civil dispute which was converted into criminal dispute.

¶43

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioners are the owners of the land in Survey No.318/A and it is an admitted fact that the complainant herein has executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioners herein and also executed a mortgage deed in favour of parties.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that as the victims and their family having executed an agreement of sale, not turned up for executing a regular sale deed. Therefore, they were constrained to file a civil suit for specific performance

¶45

2 202k LiveLaw (SC)¹⁴

¶46

¶47

basing upon the agreement of sale executed in their favour and the same was decreed in their favour. Therefore, he would submit that because of the filing of the suit by the petitioners herein, the victims / defacto-complainant family members^have misused the Act and filed the present false case against the petitioners herein.

¶48

It is true that the petitioners herein filed the civil^suitfor specific performance, vide O.S. 8 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni and the said Suit was decreed exparte on 21.10.2019. No written statement was filed by the defendants in the said suit who are the victims in the present Criminal Case and LWl died on 18.08.2020.

¶49

Learned counsel contends that as stated in the Charge sheet, the victims have not executed any mortgage deed^intheir favour, they have executed agreement of sale on obtaining^an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and they failed to executed a regular sale' deed and the victims herein have filed the present^false complaint by abusing the process of law by invoking^theAct.

¶50

¶51

It is the specific case of the LWl and his family members, the accused have kept their eyes on the valuable property^ofthe victims and in order to grab the valuable land along^withthe house, they have threatened the victims and their family members. There is some force in the contentions made by the victims herein. Though they have executed an agreement^ofsale in favour of the petitioners herein, it is the specific^caseofthe victims that the accused/petitioners are trying to^{grabtheentire} valuable property of the victims and they have threatened^the victims family and it is not the case of the petitioners-accused^or disputing the ownership of the property of the victims, Their case is that the victims and their family members have^executed an agreement of sale. Therefore, at this stage, the^caseofthe victims cannot be thrown away on technical grounds^thatthe incident was not happened in the public view or the^casewas instituted as the case of civil suit in order to convert into criminal dispute.

¶52

¶53

The Judgment of the HonTDle Supreme Court relied on by the petitioners herein is not applicable to the present^factsofthe case.

¶54

But, in the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners are tiying to grab the property^ofLWland their family members and when the same was questioned by the victims, the accused have threatened the victims and their family members. Therefore, the citation of the HonTole Apex Court relied by the petitioners is not applicable to the present facts of the case.

¶55

On considering the overall aspects of the charge sheet, it is not a case to quash in preemption, as there are specific allegations against the petitioners-accused and they have threatened the victims and their family members and the judgments relied on by the petitioners are not applicable^tothe present facts of the case, this Court found no reasons to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 100/2019 on the^fileofthe Special Judge for Trial of the Cases under the SCs, STs (PoA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Kumool.

¶56

¶57