AVULAPALLI GIRIJAMMA Vs. J RAMACHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Private complaint filed by the first respondent alleging that he, a member of a scheduled caste community, while working as Medical Officer at Primary Health centre, Gurramkonda, was sent on deputation to Kandukuru Primary Health centre, and when he went to Gurramkonda Primary Health Centre to claim his salary, he was informed that his salary was not drawn and so while was returning home, petitioners met him on the way and abused him in a filthy language, by invoking the name of his caste and had assaulted him 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), and Section 323 IPC was referred to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, after investigation, submitted a final report that the case of first respondent is false. On a protest petition, the learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the 1st respondent, took cognizance of the case under Section 3(l)(x) of the Act and Section 323 IPC and registered it as P.R.C. No. 9 of 2001. This petition is to quash the proceedings in the said P.R.C. No. 9 of 2001.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since 1st respondent has been harassing the petitioners, who are his subordinates in the office, they made complaints against him to the superior officers and since some of the petitioners launched prosecution against him also, disciplinary proceedings were vitiated against him, and therefore, he, with a view to see that petitioners would come to terms with him, lodged a false complaint against them and so the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that since the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of the offences alleged and since non-examination of all the witnesses cited, per se, is not a ground for quashing the proceedings and since the incident alleged in the complaint took place or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced during trial, there are no grounds to quash the ppceedings. Placing strong reliance on Rsy v. State of Kerala S. Madhava Reddy v. State of AP. Rosamma Thomas v. C.L of Police , and J. Shiva Shankar v. Deputy Superintendent of Police he contended that since the learned Magistrate did not commit any error in taking cognizance of the case after recording the sworn statement of first respondent, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings.

(3.) After the complaint of the first respondent was referred to him for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer submitted a report after investigation. It shows that first respondent, while working as Medical Officer, Gurramkonda, was harassing, teasing and humiliating the staff members, including petitioners 1 to 7, by not granting casual leaves, increments, F.T.A. and other financial benefits and was also calling women staff to come to him to fulfill his lust and when they refused, he used to carry tales against them to their husbands and relatives, and being unable to bear the harassment and torture, petitioners 1 to 7 and other members of the staff approached the District Medical and Health Officer and the Collector and made a representation, and thereafter first respondent was deputed to work at Primary Health Centre, Kandukur, but he without going to that place continued his harassment of the members of the staff, and so they made fresh representations to the superior officers, whereupon an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Collector, to make an enquiry, and as per the advice of the Enquiry officer, petitioners 1 to 7 gave a police report, which was registered as Crime No. 74 of 2000 under Sections 506 and 509, IPC against the first respondent, and that police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 02 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Voyalpadu, against the first respondent and so first respondent was suspended from service, and so, he, with a view to bring petitioners 1 to 7 to terms, lodged a false complaint against them. That report also shows that the witnesses cited by the first respondent are his supporters.