GOLUGURI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in Crime No.238 of 2004 of Town Police Station, Narsapuram. On a compliant given by the second respondent on 8-12-204, Sub- Inspector of Police registered the said crime under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act, for brevity). In this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), the Accused Nos.1 and 2 seek an order for quashing the said crime. This Court while admitting the matter on 28-12-2004 stayed the arrest of the petitioners. When the application filed by the second respondent being Crl.MP No.205 of 2005 for vacating the said interim order, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, was heard finally and is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) The second respondent (complainant) filed a written complaint alleging as follows. The petitioners and two others obtained signatures and blank promissory notes and judicial stamp papers and the complainant stood as guarantor to the persons who purchased fish feed. When those persons failed to pay the amount, the complainant repaid the said amount. On 7-5-2004, when he approached the Accused Nos.1 and 2 over the petitioners herein, they abused him in filthy language and pressurized him to pay an amount of Rs.32,000/-. The Accused No.l also filed a suit for a sum of Rs.5,45,400/- and obtained an order of attachment on 30-10-2004 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Accused Nos.1 and 2 again called the complainant on 26-11-2004 to their shop and intentionally insulted and intimidated the complainant with intention to humiliate him by abusing and calling him by his caste name, as he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Madiga). On these allegations, he made a compliant on 8-12-2004. The police registered the crime and the case was entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer for investigation. Accused Nos.1 and 2 moved this Court on 27-12-2004 and obtained interim orders of stay of arrest on 28-12-2004.

(3.) Appearing in support of the petitioners, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel made three submissions. First, a reading of the compliant given by the complainant, on the face of it, does not disclose commission of offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Act. Secondly, even according to the compliant, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly abused the complainant at their shop and therefore the element of abusing and insulting 'within public view' is absent and therefore the prosecution cannot succeed in the case. Lastly, he would urge that as per Rule 7(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (the Rules, for brevity), the Investigating Officer has to complete the investigation in thirty days, which was not done and therefore the delay in investigation prejudicially affects the petitioners giving a cause for them to seek quashing of the complaint.