Y VASUDEVA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in P.R.C.No.32 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. They are alleged to have committed on offence punishable under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act). In this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C), they seek quashing of the said P.R.C. Be it also noted, the petitioner earlier filed Criminal Petition NO.3019 of 2001 to quash the case when the same was at the stage of investigation in crime No.238 of 2001 of P.S. Chilakalguda, Secunderabad, and which was registered on an endorsement made by the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. Be it also noted, by an order dated 12-2-2002 this Court dismissed the Criminal Petition by reasoned order. Be it also further noted that after the dismissal of the Criminal Petition referred to herein the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the case on 19-11-2003. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Case being Crl.R.C.No.1941 of 2003. By order dated 12-2-2004, this Court dismissed the said Criminal Revision Case by reasoned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed S.L.P.(Crl) No.2412 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7-7-2004. Thereafter, on 18-11-2004 petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition yet again for quashing the criminal case, which is at P.R.C. i.e., committal.

(2.) In the back ground, briefly noticed hereinabove, nothing would have been a valid cause of action for the petitioners to again approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. Pattabhi, made strenuous efforts presumably for the reason that the first petitioner is an Advocate and the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. Though aware of the effort put in by the learned counsel for the petitioners to extricate a member of his peer group from a serious criminal proceeding, this Court, however, is not able to agree with the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Vehemence is not always a sign of valour nor valour always nibs discretion at the stage of bud! If persistent vehemence in a game played according to forensic rules exceeds the limit, it gives place to abuse of process of Court. That is what is precisely happened in this case as the accused persons filed the present petition is gross abuse of process of Court by ignoring various salient provisions of Cr.P.C., and two well considered judgments of this Court earlier referred to hereinabove.

(3.) Some more facts, albeit, in brief are as follows the second respondent herein filed a complaint on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate Secunderabad. He alleged that the petitioners approached him for a loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees five lakh only) in connection with their real estate business and de facto complainant paid the amount after obtaining promissory note wherein the petitioners agreed to pay the loan amount with 24 per cent interest per annum. The petitioners committed default. When the complainant demanded the payment, the first petitioner issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00. The same was dishonoured by the bank. On 18-5-2001, the complainant approached the first petitioner at the residence of the latter and demanded the payment. The petitioners is stead of paying the amount, necked the complainant out of the house and abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste (Erukala) and subjected the complainant to agony and humiliation and therefore, the petitioners committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.