T TARANATH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the F.I.R. No. 157 of 1998 on the file of Nagarampalem Police Station (Law and Order), Guntur. Petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 4 in the said crime. The first petitioner is working as Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Guntur and the second petitioner is working as Sub-Inspector of Police (Crimes), Nagarampalem Crime Police Station. The defacto-complainant filed complaint against the petitioners herein and some others. On 21 -6-1998 night the Revolver of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, purse of his wife, spectacles of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, small bag were lost in the house of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. To that the Deputy Superintendent of Police is alleged to have given report on 22-6-1998. On 23-6-1998 the complainant was brought to the Additional Superintendent of Police's Bangalow from Sathenapalli by C.C.S. Circle Inspector, Ramamohana Rao in a jeep. Thereafter the complainant was asked to come to the C.C.S. on 24-6-1998 at 8-30 a.m. The first petitioner herein is alleged to have enquired from the defacto-complainant about the missing revolver. From 24-6-98 to 26-6-98 the first petitioner is alleged to have enquired from the defacto-complainant about the same issue and number of questions were put to the defacto-complainant which was answered by him. While it so happened that on 30-6-1998 at about 11 a.m. the petitioners herein and other accused called the defacto-complainant and directed him not to leave Guntur without permission and also not to 'all anybody on phone and also not to go to Sathenapalli and further directed the defacto-complainant to appear before them as and when called for. On 2-7-1998 at about 1 p.m., the defacto- complainant alleged to have gone to Sathenapalli DSP's Office from Guntur, took passport at 3 p.m., took the carbon copy and handed over the same to Mr. Jacob Babu who relied him and thereafter returned to Guntur. While the petitioner was on duty on 4-7-1998, the C.C.S. Police Constable, Guntur, Mr. Seetharamayya is alleged to have visited the defacto-complainant and informed him that his Guard Incharge, H.C., Ranga Reddy was calling the defacfo-complainant to appear before the Guntur Town D.S.P. for enquiry. The defacto-complainant accordingly alleged to have gone to the Police Club by cycle. There he found the petitioners and others. The details as to what transpired on that day during the interrogation of the petitioners in connection with the crime relating to missing of revolver and other articles of the D.S.P. are not required to be noticed.

(2.) The defacto-complainant in categorical terms alleges that he was beaten with lathi on the knees and bootlegged on his feet and he was weeping. It is alleged that he was abused by the persons there. The first petitioner is alleged to have bent the middle finger of his left hand and repeated the same for about 5 to 10 minutes to elicit the truth and he wept having not been able to bear the harassment and pain. It is specifically alleged that the C.I. Rama Mohan scolded the defacto-complainant in the name of caste and beat him on his collar bone with his boot legs and started saying "Era Madiga Nakodaka, Erukalas and Madigas used to Make Thefts" in an abusive manner. The D.S.P. is alleged to have beat with lathi sticks and abused him. At this stage, it is not required to notice the details of the be allegations levelled by the defacto-complainant against the petitioners herein and others. On the complaint of the defacfo-complainant a crime in Crime No. 157 of 1998 was registered under Sections 341 and 3231.P.C. r/w. Sec. 3 (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) In this application, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam contends that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not applicable as against the petitioners. Itisurged by the learned Counsel that even by taking the entire complaint to be true on its face value, the petitioners cannot be accused of any offence whatsoever punishable under Section 3 (X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. At this stage we are not concerned with regard to the allegations relating to and punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is required to notice that Section 3 (X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 says that "whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine." The very opening words of Section 3 would show that the offence punishable under Section 3 (X) could be attributed to only a person who does not belong to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The provisions of the Act are not attracted even if any such utterance is made as the one punishable under Section 3 (X) of the Act. By a person who belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. There is no dispute whatsoever in the instant cases that the first petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community and the Second Petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community. They are not punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The provision itself is not attracted. Under those circumstances, no case could have been registered against the petitioners under Section 3 (X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act. Even otherwise a plain and pragmatic reading and assessment of the contents of the complaint would disclose that the defacto-complainant attributed that the defacto-complainant attributed that it was the C.I., Ramamohana Rao and another who are alleged to have based the defacto-complainant attracting the Provisions of Section 3 (X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There are no allegations whatsoever against the petitioners attracting the Provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.