Dismissed

Bathini Rajaiah and Another v. the State of A.P. and Another

Telangana HC27 Apr 2022CRLP/6514/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court considered a petition to quash proceedings for an offence under the SC/ST Act and IPC involving alleged caste insults and assault. The court held the allegations constituted a cognizable offence and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; proceedings in FIR No.82 of 2013 not quashed.

Bathini Rajaiah and Another Vs the State of A.P. and… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6514 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bathini Rajaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, aged 55 years,

¶9

Bathini Ramesh, S/o.Venkataiah, aged 46 years,

¶10

Both are R/o-Lalapalli Village, Karimnagar Drstrict

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Hyderabad.

¶14

K.Latchaiah, S/o. Lingaiah, aged 50 years, Rl/o. Yeligedu Village, Karimnagar District.

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COM PLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in ihe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, lhe High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.82 of 2013 on the file of the Julapalli Police Station, Karimnagar District.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLPMP. NO: 5919 OF 2013)

¶18

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 of all further proceedings in FIR No.82 of 2013 on the file of the Julapalli Police Station, Karimnagar District, including arrest of the petitioners pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. S. Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JTISTI('!] A.SANI'IIOSH REDDY CRIMINAL PllTl'I'lON No.65l4 of 2013

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.82 of 2013 of Julapatli Police Station, Karimnagar District registered against the petitioners/accused lbr the olfences punishable under Sections 3( 1) (x) ofthc Scheduled Clastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, l9ll9 and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶24

The second respondent/ de lacto corrplainant filed report on 18.06.2013 before the Station [{ousc Ofllccr. Julapalli stating that on the same day at about 5 pnr he \'as itt vcqctable rnarket, the petitioners came on motorcyclc antl clashed to his cycle. As a result, he fell down. Then petitioncr no. I caught hold and abused him in the name of caste in filthy language and pc-titioner no.2 gave a blow on his back side and both of thcrr abLrsed hirn in tllthv language in the name of caste. In the rneanu hilc. M.'asaiah. K.Mallesham and M.Manohar Reddy intcrvened ancl scparated thcur. Basing on the said allegations, a case in crime No.82 r:r 1' l0lj was registered for the

¶25

aforesaid offences against the petitioncrs/accused.

¶26

¶27

¶28

Learned counscl lor the petitioners contended that the petitioncr No. I rvas Sarpanch. I{e had complained to the revenue authorities in the year 20 I I that encroachments are taking place on govemment lands.^'l'hc authorities have taken steps about the encroachments and as a result. the second respondent and his henchmen attacked the rn and he lodged complaint to the police Learned counscl lirrther submitted that as counter blast a lalse complaint rvas llled and the present case is registered. He relied on the^judgnrcrrt ol Hon'ble Apex Court in State of I{aryana v.Bhajanlal^' .

¶29

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State opposed thc pe tition.

¶30

A perusal of thc allegations of the complaint would show that the pet itioncrs/accusccl abused the second respondent by taking his caste and abuscd hiur in lilthy language and beat him with hands and incident u,as rr'itnessed by three^persons who intervened and separatcd thcrn.^I h,,-^incident occurred on 18.06.2013 and on the same day the complaint is lodged.

¶31

I t992 supp ( l) sCC lii

¶32

¶33

ln the^judgme nt ol- State of Haryana cited supra the Hon'ble

¶34

Supreme Courr held as under

¶35

" In the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciatcd by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the exlraordinary porvsr under Arlicle 226 or the inlrerent porvers undcr Section^.182 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure which wc have exlractcd and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by wav ol' illustration wherein such power could bc cxercised either to prcvcnt abuse of the process of any Court or otherwisc to secure thc cnds ofjustice. though it may not be possible to lay down any precisc. clcarly dctlned and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelincs or rigid tbrrnulate and to give an exhaustive list of nrvriad kinds of cascs rvherein such power should be ererc ised:

¶36

(a) rvhere the allegations rnadc in the First lnformation Report or the cornplaint. even iI thcr are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima thcie constitute any offence or make out a casc against the accuscd:

¶37

(b) rvhere thc allegatiorr: in thc l:irst Information Report and other nratcrials. if any. accornpan,'ing thc F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizablc off-ence. jrrstifiinc an investigation by police officers under Sectiorr 156(l) ol' the fode except under an order of a Ma.gistrate u ithin thc pun ilr ol-Scctiorr 155(2) of the Code;

¶38

(c) where lhe uncontro\encd allegatiorrs made in the FIR or 'cornplaint and the er itlcnec collcclcd in support of the same do not disclose the comnrissi(rr rrl'arrr ott'crrce and make out a case against the accusecl:

¶39

(d) rvhere thc allegation:, irr thc l:ll{ do not constitute a cognizable ollincc but corrslalutc onl\ a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is pernrittcil br a policc officcr rvithout an order ofa Magistratc as conlcnrPlalcd urder Section 155(2) ofthe Code;

¶40

(e) wherc thc allcgations nradc in thc FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentlv irnprobabic (Ir 1hc basis^()f which no prudent person can cver rcach a just corrclurion that there is sufficient ground for procced irrg against thc accuscd:

¶41

(l) whcre there is an crprcs; lcgal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of tlre Codc or thc .()Iccr ncd Act (under which a criminal procccding is institutcd; t() lltc slitLrtion and continuance ol the

¶42

¶43

<br>

¶44

proceedings and/or rvhere there is a specific provision in thc Code or thc corrcerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grierancc ol thc aggrieved party:

¶45

(g) sherc a criminal proceeding is manifestly attendcd u'ith mala llde and/or where the proceeding is maliciousll, institute d u ith an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accuscd and u,ith a view to spite him due to private and personal grudgc.

¶46

Revefting to the present case, the allegations rnadc in the

¶47

complaint, I arn o1'the opinion, clearly constitutc a cogrlizablc o1l-ence justil-ving reqistration of the case and investigation thereon. ..\s per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the abovc judgmcnt, the present case does not fall under any onc ol' the categorics ol the cases formulatetl above calling for the exercise of extraordirrarv or inherent powers of this Court to quash thc L-.1.1{. under Scction 482 Cr.P.C.

¶48