Whether SC and ST atrocities Act is attracted if abuses are given on telephone?

 The second ground raised for quashing the proceedings that according to the averments made by the defacto complainant in her complaint that the petitioner herein telephoned her and abused her on the ground of caste. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the averment is taken to be true for the purposes of the case, the offence is not made out. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to section 3 (1) (x) of the said Act, which reads as under:

"Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."

 In the present case, the averment made by the defacto complainant that she was abused on telephone. Therefore, this Court holds that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the said Act are not attracted to the present set of facts.

Andhra High Court

Potluri Poorna Chandra Prabhakar ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Its ... on 17 October, 2001

Equivalent citations: 2001 (2) ALD Cri 834, 2001 (5) ALT 768, 2002 (1) ALT Cri 574

Bench: R M Bapat

1. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C. No. 30 of 1997 which is pending on the file of the Special Judge for cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. There is a checkered history as to how this complaint came into existence.

2. It appears from the record that the accused herein had a daughter named Usha. One B. Immaniel, husband of the defacto complainant with an intention to marry her, abducted her. She was a married woman. The husband of Usha gave a complaint against the said B. Immaniel, Inspector of Police, for abduction of his wife. The case was registered and investigated by C.I.D Police and they filed the charge sheet on 6-10-1995 in the Court of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. The case was numbered as P.R.C. No. 2 of 1996.

3. It is further stated in the petition that the defacto complainant in this case and her husband colluded with each other and the defacto complainant executed an agreement in writing in favour of her husband Immaniel, who is the sole accused in P.R.C. No. 2 of 1996, agreeing to leave him even if Immaniel marries Usha. Therefore, Immaniel abducted Usha for the second time. Then the petitioner herein filed a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition. It came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 19538 of 1996. The Division Bench directed the release of Usha and further directed to the Director General of Police to transfer Immaniel at a far off place from Hyderabad. Accordingly the Director General of Police, Hyderabad transferred Mr. Immaniel to Srikakulam. Immaniel challenged the said order by filing S.L.P. No. 6253 of 1997 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed it by an order dated 2-3-1998.

4. When the matters stood thus, the defacto complainant in this case filed a report before the Police alleging that the petitioner herein has committed an offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Police took cognizance and investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C. No. 30 of 1997.

5. Now the present petition is filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 30 of 1997 on three grounds. The first ground that the Special Judge for Cases under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, Guntur has taken the cognizance of the offence without it being committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate having jurisdiction in violation of two decisions, one decision rendered by this Court in REFERRING OFFICER v. SHEKAR NAIR, , and another decision reported in GANGULA ASHOK & ANOTHER v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, . This Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Special Court does not get jurisdiction to try the offences under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless the Magistrate commits it to the Court of Session. In this Case, the charge sheet was filed directly in the Special Court and therefore this Court holds that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction.

6. The second ground raised for quashing the proceedings that according to the averments made by the defacto complainant in her complaint that the petitioner herein telephoned her and abused her on the ground of caste. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the averment is taken to be true for the purposes of the case, the offence is not made out. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to section 3 (1) (x) of the said Act, which reads as under:

"Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."

7. In the present case, the averment made by the defacto complainant that she was abused on telephone. Therefore, this Court holds that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the said Act are not attracted to the present set of facts.

8. The 3rd ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein submitted that Rule 7 made under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 prescribes that the investigation has to be done under this Act by the Officer not below the rank of D.S.P. In the present case, the S.I. of Police did the investigation, which is not a disputed fact.

9. Under these circumstances and for the reasons stated to above, C.C. No. 30 of 1997, which is pending on the file of the Special Judge for cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Guntur, has to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed.

10. Thus, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Print Page