THAKUR PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who are husband and wife, abused, Smt. Moole Balamma, a harijan by caste, by invoking the name of her caste and insulted and intimidated her in public view and hence, are liable for punishment under Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (the Act). This petition is filed to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police do not disclose the second petitioner uttering any word, or doing any act insulting or intimidating the de facto- complainant, charge sheet against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant is that since the charge sheet shows that both the petitioners used filthy language and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences by invoking the name of her caste there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Statements of witnesses recorded by the police were read over to me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The allegations therein show that first petitioner only used filthy language against the defacto complaint. None of the witnesses spoke anything about the second petitioner uttering any word or making any insulting or intimidating gesture againstthedefacto-complainant. Whennone of the witnesses spoke about the involvement of the second petitioner in the offence, merely because the last sentence in the charge sheet states thatboth petitioners abused thedefacto complainant, it cannot be said that second petitioner also had abused or insulted the defacto complainant in filthy language by invoking the name of her caste or had insulted her in public view. So the proceedings against the second petitioner are liable to be quashed.