The High Court held that a private telephonic conversation between two individuals, not made in public view and not published, does not attract sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, and therefore quashed the criminal proceedings.
Proceedings in C.C. No.28/2023 against the petitioner were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
zar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5247 OF 2024
Between:
MD Ismail, S/o Dastagiri, Aged about 60 years, Occ; Superintendent in Rayalaseema University, R/o H No 11561 Shilpa Township Kurnool Kurnool District
...Petitioner/Accused AND
Amaravathi.
Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District.
...Respondent
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings CC No.28/2023 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST Act Case Cum VI Addl. District Judge, Kurnool.
%
I.A. NO: 2 OF
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the proceedings CC No.28/2023 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST Act Case Cum VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool. This Petition . ^ coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1
The Court made the following:
BVLNC.J Page 1 of 7
CRL.P,No.5247 OF 2024 DT: 11.09.2024 «
[3368]
APHC010324462024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5247/2024
Between:
Md Ismail
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1.GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
BVLNC.J Page 2 of 7
CRL.P.No.5247 OF 2024 DT; 11.09.2024
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5247 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.
- The Criminal Petition is filed U/s.482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings in C.C.28/2023 on the file of Spl.Court for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Addl.District Judge, Kurnool filed against the petitioner/Accused.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged offence was not committed in the public view. Even if it is presumed to be true, and therefore, section 3 (1) (u), 3 (1) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable to the facts of the case, as it amounts to abuse of process. In support of his arguments, he relied upon order of this Court dated 12.04.2022 passed in Criminal Petition No.321/2015.
CRL.P.No.5247 OF 2024 DT: 11.09.2024
BVLNC.J Page 3 of 7
- The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was arraignedasA-1 in C.C.28/2023 on the file of Spl.Court for Trial ofOffencesunderSC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Addl.District Judge, Kurnool. It appearsthatanother
person was also arraigned as A-2, and he is no more.
- The case of the complainant is that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and studying Post Graduate in Rayalaseema University. A-1 and A-2 are working as SuperintendentandProfessor respectively in Rayalaseema University. A-1 made aphonecalltoA-2. The son of A-2 recorded their conversation, as A-1 spoiled the career of A-2. He sent the audio recording clip to one B.Ayyanna(L.W-6). Then L.W-6 sent it L.W-5/G.Sudheer Babu. Thereafter, L.W-5 sent it B.Sankaraiah/L.W-4 and then, he sent it to the compipinant. In the impugned audio conversation, A-1 insulted Universitystaffinthename of caste. A-2 supported A-1, but he did not abuse orinsultanyone. Thereupon, the complasinant presented a report to the police on 17.01.2023. Police registered the same as case in Cr.No.8/2023forthe
BVLNCJ Page 4 of 7
CRL.P.No.5247 OF 2024 DT: 11.09.2024
offence U/s.3 (1) (u), 3 (1) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act against A-1 and A-2 investigated the ease, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, filed police report (charge sheet) for the above offence.
- Copy of report presented to police would show that the impugned audio clip was a private conversation between A-1 and A-2. They did not publish the conversion.
- The learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the said conversation was not made within public view, and therefore,thesaid conversation will not come under the purview of section 3 (1) (u), 3 (1) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
- Undisputedly, except A-1 and A-2, no other person was present at the time of telephonic conversation between A-1 and A-2. It was only between A-1 and A-2. It was also not published by theaccused. The complaint does not disclose anything made against the complaint to humiliate him in the name of caste. In the absence of any such averments, a conversation over phone between two individuals made not within the public view, would not come within the purview of section 3 (1) (u), 3 (1) (V) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
BVLNC.J Page 5 of 7
I
J
CRL.P.No.5247 OF 2024 DT: 11.09.2024
- The inherent powers of Court U/s.482 Cr.P.C. can beexercisedto prevent abuse of process of Court, when the allegationsinthereportare not constituting any prima facie case for the offencestatedabove,inthe light of judgment of the Hon’be Apex Court in the caseofStateof Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and others\
- The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh VerrhaVs.Stateof Uttarakhand and another^ held that “if the remark ismadeinsidea building, in the absence of members of public, it wouldnotanoffence. since it is not in the public view”.
- This Court in the order dated 12.04.2022 passed in Criminal Petition No.321/2015 considered various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the principle of ‘public view’, and applicationofsection3ofthe Act, held that “whatsapp messages between two personswerenotin public view, as the conversation was only between twoindividuals”.
' AIR 1992 sc 604
' (2020) 10 see 710
BVLNC.J Page 6 of 7
CRL.P.NO.5247OF2024 DT: 11.09.2024
\
C.C.28/2023 on the file of Spl.Court for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Addl.District Judge, Kurnool.
Kurnool, are quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- P U V BHASKAR ASSISTANT^ REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECttON OFFICER
To,
PR sree
HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.5247 of 2024
.<rp
fx.-
\o 2 7 SEP 202‘i ™)i
V
Currsni Section 'If- r
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a telephonic conversation between two individuals made in private without public view falls within the purview of Section 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Whether the proceedings under the SC/ST (POA) Act against the petitioner for private remarks over a phone call constitute an abuse of process under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and othersExplained¶64
State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and others
Hitesh Verrha Vs.State of UttarakhandExplained¶65
Hitesh Verrha Vs.State of Uttarakhand
Criminal Petition No.321/2015Relied on¶47
Criminal Petition No.321/2015
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Md Ismail
The State of Andhra Pradesh
S Vijaya Bhaskar
B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
