(Petition Under Section 482 of the Crl.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.64/2012 on the file of the Station House Officer, Kazipet Police Station, Warangal Urban, Warangal District.)
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A1 to A5 in Crime No.64 of 2012 of Kazipet Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences under Sections 3 (1)(ix) and (x) and 4 of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The second respondent herein is the complainant.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the second respondent herein by name P. Pruthvi filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal. In the complaint it is the case of the second respondent that she had initially joined as Lecturer in ECE Department in the year 1997 and thereafter she was promoted as Assistant Professor. Petitioner No.1 is Head to her. It is further stated that since from the date of joining as Lecturer, she has been facing discrimination from petitioner No.1. It is also stated that when she was carrying, she applied for maternity leave, and petitioner No.1 did not grant the leave initially and after confirmation by the doctor only, she was granted leave. It is also stated that Petitioner No.1 made her to stand in front of her by putting her legs in her chair and treated the second respondent with discrimination intentionally as she belongs to Scheduled Caste and a disparity has been maintained and she was not tolerated and has been got insulted. Petitioner No.1 insulted her taking the name of her caste that “Prithvi is an SC, she has head weight and thinks that she is fair and beautiful”. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 did not allow the second respondent to sit in her classes and whenever she forcibly sit in the class, petitioner No.1 would say that “if this lady (complainant) is sitting in my class I don’t take class” and cancelled the classes. It is also stated that the second respondent bearing all the humiliation taken up examination of SDSD subject in M.Tech, for which petitioner No.1 intentionally found fault with her answers. It is further stated that the second respondent represented to the authorities with several letters, dated 17-07-2002, 05-07-2002, 20-09-2002 and 09-10-2002, but the administration failed to curb the psychotic and sadistic behaviour of petitioner No.1, and have taken the help of Court which ordered REC authorities to send the answer scripts of the second respondent to three other IIT’s for correction. It is further stated that the upper caste senior staff are misusing the powers and are intentionally depriving the rights of the second respondent, who belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is further alleged that the petitioners, being in the position of Head of Department and Members of Board of Governors and Committee Members, had violated the Rules by recommending the name of one Sri P. Muralidhar, ECE Department, for Senior Lecturer scale and gave double promotion of selection grade directly from Lecturer to Associate Professor by giving wrong information of the said Muralidhar appearing for CAS-2004, CAS-2006 and CAS-2007 and discriminated her since she belongs to Scheduled Caste and that the fourth petitioner informed her that if at all she is aggrieved, she can go to Court, High Court, CAT(Tribunal), or SC/ST Commission, nothing comes to her rescue because they did it with a plan that no legal action can be taken against the administration. It is further alleged that though CAS-2009 was closed by 22-03-2012, the petitioners issued supplementary appointment orders to Sri K. Ananda Kishore and Sri S. Srinath of Chemical Department on 18-04-2012 under CAS even though they are not eligible and the same was denied to her as she belong to Scheduled Caste community. It is further stated that the administration has not moved a little finger though the second respondent went on hunger strike from 19-04-2012 and hence the complaint. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Station House Officer, Kazipet Police Station, for investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-A1 to A5 filed the present petition to quash the proceedings against them in the said crime.
3. Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are working in the cadre of Associate Professor, Professor and Director of the National Institute of Technology at Warangal and are leading respectable life in society and they are falsely implicated in this crime even though they are nothing to do with the alleged offence. He further argued that the second respondent filed the complaint stating the facts from the date of her joining in the National Institution of Technology at Warangal till date only to impress that it is a genuine case, but in fact the said facts are not necessary and relevant for lodging the complaint and that she is in the habit of filing false complaints against the authorities taking advantage of the caste under the provisions of the Act and that on the earlier occasion also, she filed W.P.No.22503 of 2002 before this Court alleging that she was discriminated as she belongs to SC community and also prayed for sending her answer script to other agencies for evaluation and ultimately the outside agency also confirmed the marks awarded by the original committee and finally the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
4. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioners are not at all concerned with CAS-2009 committee and the said committee was appointed by the Board of Governors, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, for recommending the names of the eligible candidates under the scheme in various departments including ECE Department and the said committee, basing on the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, evaluated the individual merit and eligibility of all candidates and accordingly recommended the names; and petitioner No.5 is the Chairman of the said Committee and petitioners Nos.1 to 4 have no role to play in the said committee and even petitioner No.5 also has no control over the other members of the Committee and the recommendations were made in accordance with the guidelines and eligibility criteria fixed by the UGC.
He further argued that a plain reading of the entire complaint does not even remotely suggest the attraction of any of the provisions of the Act, much less the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(ix) and (x) and 4 of the Act and that the second respondent has taken the help of media for redressal of her grievance by falsely attributing mala fides against the authorities and later went on relay hunger strike from 19-04-2012 in order to pressurize the authorities of the National Institute of Technology, Warangal to give her promotion under CAS-2009 scheme contrary to the guidelines and the scheme and that when the second respondent could not succeed in all her attempts, she lodged the present complaint taking advantage of the caste that there is no provision for anticipatory bail under the said Act, and therefore, the present complaint filed by the second respondent is vexatious and frivolous and if the prosecution against the petitioners is allowed to be continued, it is nothing but abuse of process of law. In support of his arguments, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in J. SUMANA v. ENDLURI ASEERWADAMMA (2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 246 (AP) wherein this Court, while dealing with the expression of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, held that it is clear from the language used in Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, intentional insult or intimidation has to be made in any place within the public view with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
In ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (2011(2) ALD (Crl.) 82 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring to the provision of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, held that “the words used “in any place but within public view”, means the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the person is not present.”
The learned counsel further argued that petitioner No.1 has no prejudice against the second respondent at any point of time and the special confidential reports prepared by him against the second respondent are self-explanatory and therefore, it cannot be said that he has acted detriment to the interest of the second respondent denying her promotion.
The learned counsel finally argued that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised where there is no prima facie case is made out from the allegations and in this case the complaint averments do not attract the ingredients of the provisions of the Act, and thus the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to quashed.
5. While responding to the aforesaid arguments, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, argued that basing on the private complaint filed by the second respondent, the learned Magistrate, having found prima facie material, forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and accordingly the investigation was started and the same is in progress, and number of witnesses were examined and therefore, at this stage, the Court cannot go into the merits of the case. He further argued that the averments of the complaint squarely fall under the definition of Sections 3(1)(ix) and (x) of the Act and thus the Court cannot exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as the complaint will not come under the exceptional cases and any finding on the subject matter at this juncture is premature and in support of the same, he placed reliance on the decision reported in IRIDIUM INDIA TELECOM LTD v. MOTOROLA INC. (2011) 1 SCC 74), wherein it was held that:
“As noticed earlier, both the appellants and the respondents have much to say in support of their respective view points. Which of the views is ultimately to be accepted, could only be decided when the parties have had the opportunities to place the entire materials before the Court. This Court has repeatedly held that power to quash proceedings at the initial stage has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. Such power can be exercised where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and have been instituted maliciously with ulterior motive. Thus inherent power ought not to be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
In the present case, the parties are yet to place on the record the entire material in support of their claims. The issues involved are of considerable importance to the parties in particular, and the world of trade and commerce in general. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the High Court ought to have refrained from indulging in detailed analysis of very complicated commercial documents and reaching any definite conclusions.
6. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in the said crime.
7. Before going into the merits of the case, for better appreciation, it is just and necessary to mention the ingredients of Sections 3(1) (ix) and (x) and 4 of the Act, which are as follows:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities:(1)Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
xx xxx xxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
(ix) gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(x) 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.
4. Punishment for neglect of duties: Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year.”
8. In the complaint the second respondent stated that she has initially joined as Lecturer in the year 1997 and thereafter she was promoted as Assistant Professor. She also stated that the petitioners prevailed upon the CAS-2009 committee and deprived her the selection grade promotion though she fulfilled all the eligible criteria. She also stated that Petitioner No.1-A1 made her to stand in front of her, putting her legs in a chair and treated her with indiscrimination intentionally as she belongs to Scheduled Caste and also insulted her in the name of her caste, and that petitioner No.1-A1 did not allow her to sit in her classes and whenever she forcibly sits in the class, petitioner-A1 would say that “if this lady (complainant) is sitting in my class I don’t take class”.
9. Now let us see whether the averments made in the private complaint filed by the second respondent attract the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(ix and (x) and 4 of the Act.
10. A perusal of the complaint does not disclose that the second respondent was harassed or humiliated in the public place and also in the view of the public. Nowhere she averred that Petitioner No.1-A1 made any comment touching her caste in the presence of anyone. Moreover the place of incident is also not noted in the complaint. It is also not mentioned when she was harassed and shown discrimination. Moreover the complainant asserted that she has been harassing by the petitioner No.1-A1 from the year 1997. When such is the plea taken by the second respondent, filing of the present petition in the year 2012 is only an afterthought with abnormal delay.
11. Moreover the procedure as stated in the petition is that CAS-2009 selection committee was appointed by the Board of Governors, National Institute of Technology, Warangal for recommending the names of the eligible candidates under the scheme in various departments including ECE Department. The committee consists of seven persons as under:
1. Prof. T. Srinivasa Rao, Director, NIT, Warangal – Chairman
2. Prof. S.S. Pathak, IIT, Kharagpur – Member (subject expert)
3. Prof.Sandeep Sancheti, Director,NIT,Delhi --Member(Subject Expert)
4. Prof. K. Narender Reddy, MGU, Nalgonda --Member (BOG Nominee)
5. Prof. Punniyamoorothy, NIT, Trichy --Member (SC/ST observer)
6 Prof. Noorul Haq, NIT, Trichy -- Member(Minority observer)
7 Prof. K.S.R. Krishna Prasad, NIT, Warangal – Member (in view of HOD)
A perusal of the particulars of the said committee, a Member belonging to SC and ST was nominated as observer. Petitioner No.1-A1 prepared the confidential report and on perusal of the confidential report, the complainant was given good grade all through and recommended for promotion of the post. Therefore, even as per the documentary evidence, the complainant was not humiliated and no adverse opinion was expressed against her by petitioner Nos.1 and 2. That apart, the said committee recommends the candidates basing on the guidelines and eligibility criteria fixed by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the allegations made by the second respondent will not attract the provisions of Sections 3(1) (ix) and (x) and 4 of the Act.
12. As seen from the complaint, it was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed mentioning the name of the Court as IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, whereas the order was passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. The complaint was filed on 01-05-2012 requesting the Court to refer the same to the concerned police station and on the same day, the learned II Additional Magistrate of First Class referred the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation. Basing on the same, the concerned police registered the case which is the subject matter of the present petition.
13. A perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the complainant has not annexed her caste certificate and also did not enclose the earlier representations said to have been made to the higher authorities. It is also alleged in the complaint that she went on hunger strike from 19-04-2012 against the administration of the petitioners. Filing of the private complaint after went on hunger strike from 19-04-2012 shows the conduct of the second respondent. Filing of the complaint on 01-05-2012 and referring to the police on the same day as requested by the complainant is very strange. The learned Magistrate simply forwarded the complaint to the police as requested by the complainant and, in my opinion, the same is hasty and without application of mind. This observation is regrettable, but in the circumstances inevitable. When the specific case of the second respondent is for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ix) and (x) and 4 of the Act, at least the learned Magistrate ought to have recorded her sworn statement and her witnesses to proceed further. As the learned Magistrate referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the police registered the crime and started investigation. For referring the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for police investigation, there must be prima facie case. The learned Magistrate did not scrutinize even the contents of the complaint and truly was a silent spectator at the time of forwarding the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. The case on hand is a classic illustration of non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate. Even prima facie, the allegations in the private complaint do not constitute the offences under which the complaint was filed.
14. When there is no prima facie material to constitute the offence in the complaint, there is every justification for the High Court to quash the proceedings while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As laid down in ASMATHUNNISA’s case (2 supra), inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
15. In STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS v. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS (AIR 1992 SC 604), the Hon’ble Supreme Court formulated certain principles pertaining to the exercise of such power in the following words:
“(102) In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S. 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
16. In JANATA DAL v. H.S. CHOWDHARY (1992) 4 SCC 305), the Apex Court held that:
This inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.”
In M.N. OJHA v. ALOK KUMAR SRIVASTAV (2009) 9 SCC 682), the Apex Court held that:
“Interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a clear case for such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled for interference even at the preliminary stage by the High Court may result in causing obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in the public interest. But at the same time the High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of justice so required where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. In such cases refusal to exercise the jurisdiction may equally result in injustice more particularly in cases where the Complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.”
17. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, now let us examine as to whether this Court can exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
18. According to the averments in the complaint, the second respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste and she alleged that the petitioners being the upper caste people have commented her touching her caste and made her to suffer all through. Admittedly as on this day, she is working as Assistant Professor getting her regular promotions in the same institution where the petitioners are also discharging their duties. The series of complaints filed by the second respondent go to show her prejudice mind against the petitioners. She after went on hunger strike, filed the present private complaint as a last resort at the behest of her caste against her senior colleagues in NIT, Warangal. Prima facie, the allegations made in the private complaint are far away from truth. The second respondent also filed similar representations earlier and the same were negatived as there is no iota of truth. In the said backdrop, the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable more particularly in this case, the second respondent-complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to harass the petitioners and arrayed them as accused in the complaint which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case where this Court can exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners-A1 to A5 in Crime No.64 of 2012 of Kazipet Police Station, Warangal District, are hereby quashed.