J SUMANA Vs. ENDLURI ASEERWADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is accused in PRC No.40/2001 on the File of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, seeks for quashing of the proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) A brief resume of background of facts is necessary to appreciate the contentions. The petitioner is working as Assistant Director, Sericulture, Buja, Nellore. The de facto-complainant Endluri Aseerwadamma, was an employee in Silk Realing Unit, Sericulture, Buja, Nellore. It is alleged that the salaries for the de facto- complainant were not paid for three months for want of budget. Thereupon, the 1 st respondent herein went to the petitioner and questioned about the non-payment of salaries. It is alleged that the petitioner abused stating that things will be like that, if jobs are given to "Malas and Madigas". These words were utterd in the presence of Lalithabai, Meharunnisa, Seenaiah and Gopal, who are also working under the accused. Thereupon, a report is presented to the Sub-Inspector, V Town Police Station, Nellore. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nellore, investigated the case and submitted a Report stating that the complaint is a false one. Aggrieved by the same, a private complaint was presented. The same has been taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and numbered it as PRC No.40/2001. As against the taking of cognizance by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, the petitioner presented a Criminal Revision Petition No.52/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Nellore, who in turn, dismissed the revision petition. As the matters stood thus, the petitioner has invoked the inherent powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in PRC No.40/2001.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly urged two contentions. Firstly, he contends that the offence did not take place in 'public view1 as contemplated under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and hence it does not constitute an offence. He has placed reliance on a decision reported in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Union of India, 2000 (5) ALD 566, wherein interpretation was put on by this Court to 'Public view'. The 2nd contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Magistrate has not taken into consideration the final report of police official and taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate without considering the final report is bad. He has also placed reliance on another decision reported in M/s. Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent has placed reliance on a decision reported in State of Kerala v. Cherian Secariah and others, AIR 1967 Kerala 106; and Saraswathi and another v. State, III (2002) CCR 446, and contends that the offence took place at public view namely in the office. It is also contended that the learned Magistrate has found prima facie case and issued process and there is no need to quash the proceedings at this stage, as no elaborate order need be passed at the time of taking cognizance. He has placed reliance on a catena of decisions namely, S.W.Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, 2002 (I) ALT (Crl.) 219 (SC); Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 736; P. V. Krishna Prasad v. K. V.N. Koteswara Rao and another, 1990 (3) ALT 202 and India Carat Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1989 SC 885. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers as there is sufficient material in taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the proceedings need not be quashed in this case.