IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 6678 of 2024 & 6267 of 2079 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 667« OF 2024 PRATAPA Between: 1. Nandavarapu Sanyasi Rao, S/o Late Atchibabu, No.1-1 age 44 years, R/o D. Nandavarapuvanipalem Village, Chintagatia Panchayat, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 2. Nandavarapu Paidamma, W/o Sanyasi Rao 1-1, Nandavarapuvanipalem Village, Chintagatia Panchayat Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 3. Dasari Ramana, S/o Late Appalanarasayya 9- 91, Ippilivanipalem Village, Chintagatia Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 4. Dasari Ganesh, S/o Dasari Ramana Ippilivanipalem Village, Chintagatia Visakhapatnam. 5. Sanaboina Sai Satish,, S/o Koteswararao 1-44, Ippilivanipalem Village, Chintagatia Mandal, Visakhapatnam. age 39 years, R/o D. No. Pendurthy aged 49 years, R/o D. No. panchayat, Pendurthy aged 30 years, R/o D. No. 9-91, panchayat, Pendurthy Mandal, aged 27 years, R/o D. No. Panchayat, Pendurthy ...Petitioner/Accused(A1 to A4 & A7) AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Pendurthy Police Station) Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Yellabilli Mettamma, W/o Apparao, Aged Nandavarapuvanipalem, H/o Chintagatia, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam about 43 years, R/o ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S/ 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 call for records in connection with SC.SPL.59 of 2019 on the file the Hon’ble Court of XI Additional District Judge - cum - Special Court for SC/ST POA Act Cases, Visakhapatnam, and quash the concerned. same so far as the petitioners are I.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS/ under Section 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 respect of SC. SPL. 59/2019 on the file the Hon'ble Court of XI Additional District Judge - cum - Special Court for SC/ST POA Act Cases, Visakhapatnam. 482 of Cr.P.C This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri N. Srihari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate for the Petitioner and the w *■ CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6267 OF 2022 Between: 1. Dasari Chinatnmalu, W/o Dasari Ramana, Age 51 years, R/o D.No.9- 91, Ippilivanipalem Village, Chintagatia Panchayat, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 2. Dasari Lalitha, D/o Dasari Ramana Aged 31 years, R/o D.No.9-91, Ippilivanipalem Village, Chintagatia Panchayat, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioners/Accused(A1 to A4 &A7) AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Pendurthy Police Station) Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Yellabilli Mettamma, W/o Apparao, Aged about 43 years, R/o Nandavarapuvanipaiem, H/o Chintagatia, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam. ...Respondents 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 call for the records in connection with SC.No.SPL. 59/20,19 on the file the Hon'ble Court of XI Additional Judge cum Special Court for SC/ST POA Act Cases, Visakhapatnam and quash the same. District I.A. NO: 2 OF 2097 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 respect f of sc. SPL. 59/2019 on the file the Hon'ble Court of XI Additional District Judge cum Special Court for SC/ST POA Act Cases, Visakhapatnam. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 The Court made the following: / 1 ,-*T- APHC010415012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 6678/2024 & 6267/2022 Criminal Petition No.6678 of 2024 Between: 1.NANDAVARAPU SANYASI RAO, S/0 LATE ATCHIBABU, AGE 44 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.1-1, NANDAVARAPUVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2.NANDAVARAPU PAIDAMMA, W/0 SANYASI RAO, AGE 39 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.1-1, NANDAVARAPUVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3.DASARI RAMANA, S/0 LATE APPALANARASAYYA, AGED 49 YEARS, R/0 D. NO. 9-91, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4.DASARI GANESH, S/0 DASARI RAMANA, AGED 30 YEARS, R/0 D. NO. 9-91, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5.SANABOINA SAI SATISH, S/0 KOTESWARARAO, AGED 27 YEARS, R/0 D. NO. 1-44, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATIA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESGH, (PENDURTHY POLICE STATION) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.YELLABILLI METTAMMA, W/G APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/0 NANDAVARAPUVANIPALEM, H/0 CHINTAGATIA, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Criminal Petition No.6267 of 2022 Between: 1. DASARI CHINATNMALU, W/0 DASARI RAMANA AGE 51 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.9-91, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, CHINTAGATLA PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. DASARI LALITHA, D/0 DASARI RAMANA AGED 31 YEARS, R/0 2 D.NO.9-91, IPPILIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, PANCHAYAT, PENDURTHY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) CHINTAGATLA AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, (PENDURTHY POLICE STATION) REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.YELLABILLI METTAMMA, W/0 APPARAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/0 NANDAVARAPUVANIPALEM H/0 CHINTAGATLA, PENDURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.N SRIHARI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ have been filed by the Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 to 4 & 7 and Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 respectively seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.SPI.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^ and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act^. ' For short'Cr.P.C ^ For short ‘I.P.C’ ^ For short ‘SCSI Act’ 3 i Heard Sri Arrabolu Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations made against the Petitioners are vague and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that there is a civil suit pending between the brother of 2. 3. Respondent No.2 on one hand and Accused No.1 and others on the other hand and with an intent to settle the civil dispute, the present complaint has Learned counsel would been filed with false and untenable allegations. submit that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners to Learned counsel would finally attract the alleged offences against them, submit that continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. 4. Per contra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are prima facie allegations against Petitioners in the commission of learned counsel fairly conceded for However the alleged offences, quashment of the case against Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 7. Learned counsel would further submit that in view of the specific allegations against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, the proceedings against them cannot be quashed. 5, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 4 A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 6. that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the Petitioners/Accused 7. Nos.1 to 7 alleging that, she got Ac.1.43 cents of D-Patta land in Sy.No.57/12 of Chintagatia Village. That being so. Accused No.1 along with others got registered the said property illegally and unlawfully in their names by cheating her. It is further alleged that, on coming to know about the same, she lodged a complaint with Pendurthi Police for which, they made an agreement dated 24.04.2018 agreeing to give her land and also to withdraw the cases filed against her. As they failed to do so, on 27.12.2018 at about 7.00 a.m., when Respondent No.2 went to the house of Accused No.1 and questioned about his acts. Accused No.1 and his wife Accused No.2 pushed her out of their house, abused in the name of her caste and also threatened to kill her. When Respondent No.2 went to the house of Accused No.3 who is the villager elder, he along with his family members i.e., Accused Nos.4 to 7 abused her in 5 vulgar language by touching her caste, threatened \with dire consequences and pushed her away. Hence, the complaint. As seen from the material placed on record. Accused No.1 herein along 8. with three others filed O.S.No.1965 of 2014 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the brother of Respondent No.2 seeking permanent injunction with regard to the part of the subject property and the said suit was dismissed as not-pressed on As seen from the contents of the complaint, and as fairly 06.02.20219. conceded by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, there are no specific allegations against Accused No.3, who is the villager elder and his family members i.e., Accused Nos.4 to 7 with regard to the commission of the alleged offences. In HItesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another^ the Hon’ble 9. Apex Court at Para Nos.14 and 21 held as under: 14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or What is to be intimidation in “any place within public view’, regarded as “place in public view’’ had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh Ors. V. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.5. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and 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 5 (2008) 8 SCC 435 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 contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public there (not merely relatives dr friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: “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 “chamaf) in are * 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 653 6 % 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 pubiic 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.” 21. In Gorige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was non disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation i/i/as that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it in/'as not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi} of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment. ” Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act punishes a person who intentionally insults or intimidates and abuses any member of SC/ST by caste name in any 10. 7 place within a public view. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr^, wherein, emphasis is made on the necessity of “public view”, which is / a basic ingredient to attract the offence, as follows; “17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 2f^January, 2016 filed by the I.O., it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IRC and 3(1 )(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present. ” (emphasis supplied^ In the case on hand, a fair look at the complaint would disclose that 11. except bald allegations, there is no material to show that Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7 insulted or intimidated and abused Respondent No.2 in the name of her caste within public view, which is the essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act. The basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. Therefore, it can be said that the allegations levelled against the ^ 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469 8 Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7 with regard to the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act do not make out a prima facie case against them. Further, except mere allegation of outraging of modesty and threatening against Respondent No.2, there is no material against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7 to attract the offences under Sections 354 and 506 IPC as well. 12. So far as Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, admittedly there is a property dispute between the families of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. As seen from the complaint, the allegations levelled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are specific in nature. Whereas, it is the contention of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 that they purchased the subject property under a Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.2261 of 2006, dated 10.02.2006 from the brother of Respondent No.2. In view of the rival contentions, this Court is of the view that there is a verifiable material against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, which has to be decided during trial before the trial Court. In that view, this is not a proper stage to consider the genuineness of the said allegations. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be quashed at this stage. However, as stated above, the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7 are liable to be quashed. 13. In the result. Criminal Petition No.6678 of 2024 is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 4 and 7 in S.C.SPI.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) 9 (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCSI Act. The petition against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed. Criminal Petition No.6267 of 2022 is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.5 and 6 in S.C.SPI.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases- cum-XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 354 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCSI Act. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC/ST POA Act Cases, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District The Station House Officer, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. One CC to Sri. Arrabolu Sai Naveen, Advocate [OPUO One CC to Sri N. Srihari, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] Three CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stu sree *■ HIGH COURT DATED:06/02/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.6678 of 2024 & 6267 of 2022 01 APR 2025 Current Section . ^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLP No. 6678 of 2024 AND ALLOWING THE CRLP No. 6267 of 2022