BODASINGI SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging that on 10-9-2002 at about 1.00 p.m. petitioners and others had trespassed into her land and removed the sheds in spite of resistance by her and others, and abused her in a filthy language touching her caste of 'Konda Kapu' community, which is a scheduled tribe community, and necked her out of the premises by threatening her with dire consequences, Medikonda Radha filed a private complaint before the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, who referred the same to Vizianagaram Rural police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. who registered the same as Cr. No. 14 of 2003. After investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Regional Incharge Officer, CID, Visakhapatnam, laid a charge sheet against the petitioners and others for offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 352, 323, 506 (2), 354, 109 R/w. Section 149, IPC and Sections 3(l)(x) and 3(2) (vii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). This petition is filed to quash the said complaint against the petitioners.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since the averments in complaint show that the caste of the defacto complainant is in dispute, and since the specific averment in the charge-sheet is that the caste certificate of the de-facto complainant as scheduled tribe, was cancelled on the ground that her parents belong to Turpu Kapu community, which is a backward community, it is clear that the de-facto complainant does not belong to scheduled tribe community, and so the provisions of the Act do not apply to her. It is his contention that merely because the de-facto complainant married a person belonging to scheduled caste community, when she does not claim that she belongs to scheduled caste community and asserts that she is a member of scheduled tribe community only, the provisions of the Act have no application for the offence alleged. Placing reliance on the following passage in para 34 at page 1022 :

(3.) The allegation in the charge-sheet shows that the caste of the de-facto complainant is in dispute since the Collector, Vizianagaram cancelled the caste certificate given to her on the ground that her parents belong to Tumpu Kapu caste, which is a backward class community, and that her husband belongs to scheduled caste community