public view - presence of public= It is true from reading of F.I.R. and from the statement of LW.1, who set the law in motion, LW.2 victim and there is nothing about presence of LW.3 their daughter aged about 7 years, leave about any persons or gathering of LWs.4 to 9 of the charge sheet to say they are the so called eye witnesses.= there is no case triable by the Court of Sessions for the offence under Section 3(i) or (ii) of the Act not attracted for no occurrence in the public view and there is no forcible administering of any abnomis substance or any other material to it much less to assault or of any dumpting excrete, waste matter or cascade etc., Hence, P.R.C. number allotted by the learned Magistrate is held unsustainable, with a direction to close the said P.R.C. and take case on file afresh as C.C. to try for other offences as Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has no application.
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6425 OF 2015
21-07-2015
T.V.S.Kuppuswamy.Petitioner
The State of Telangana, rep., by Public Prosecutor and another Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Ms.Kranthi K.Vaka
Counsel for the Respondents: Learned Public Prosecutor for Telangana
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6425 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in
P.R.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor (Telangana) for the State before notice
to respondent No.2 and before admission. Perused the material
on record.
The petitioner is A1 among two accused of crime No.628 of
2014 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 506, 323 r/w
34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
the Act). It is after investigation, the police filed charge sheet
so far as the petitioner/A1 is concerned except for the offence
under Section 3(i)(ii) of the Act, the other offences mentioned in
the F.I.R. So far as A2 is concerned including Section 3(i)(ii) of
the Act. Undisputedly, A1 belongs to Scheduled caste, as can be
seen from the charge sheet. In fact, A1 and A2 moved for
anticipatory bail and this Court while holding Crl.P.Nos.8411 and
8422 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014 held that the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has no
application so far as A1 is concerned and anticipatory bail is
maintainable and however by finding not a case granting
anticipatory bail given liberty to surrender and move for regular
bail. Even from the very report of the de facto complainant,
though there is whisper in saying the accused along with his wife
brought liquor bottles and biryani in the car into his house and
they started drinking and forced him to consume, there is
nothing to say that they forcibly administered. What he says was,
while he was consuming appears voluntarily, there is alleged
outrage of modesty of his wife. Even there from Section 3(i) or
(ii) has no application to the facts. Once that is the case, the
alleged occurrence dated 29.06.2014 leave about any
explanation for the delay in reporting the occurrence
undisputedly on 05.07.2014. The offence punishable under
Sections 354, 354-D and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. so far as accused
concerned are triable by the Magistrate. Thus, there are no
grounds to commit the case to the Court of Sessions covered by
P.R.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.
Now, it is one of the contentions further by the learned
counsel for the petitioner/A1 that in addition to what is referred
supra of no case to be tried by the Court of Sessions to commit
by the learned Magistrate, in impugning the PRC proceedings
pending before Magistrate, that there is delay in reporting the
occurrence.
It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that
F.I.R. itself contains an explanation. It is premature for this
Court at this stage as to the delay and the alleged explanation
sustainable or not but for to decide by the trial Court. Now, as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner there are
improvements in the statements of the so called witnesses LWs 3
to 7. It is true from reading of F.I.R. and from the statement of
LW.1, who set the law in motion, LW.2 victim and there is
nothing about presence of LW.3 their daughter aged about 7
years, leave about any persons or gathering of LWs.4 to 9 of the
charge sheet to say they are the so called eye witnesses. It is for
the reason in the very explanation for the so called delay, what
the de facto complainant in the report as well as in his statement
so also by the victim and LW.2 in her statement, stated is the
accused allegedly threatened them not to disclose to anybody
and not even their case of any hue and cry and therefrom
gathering of neighbours. It is having they left the village and
after one week allegedly came back and there from reported the
police. So far as these improvements concerned, it is also a
matter to be elicited in trial, as it is premature for this Court to
say F.I.R. coupled with the statements of LWs.1 and 2 is not
suffice to sustain other accusations.
Having regard to the above, the petition before admission
from the hearing of the petitioner/A1 and the 1st
respondent/State represented by Public Prosecutor and before
notice to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, disposed of
holding that there is no case triable by the Court of Sessions for
the offence under Section 3(i) or (ii) of the Act not attracted for
no occurrence in the public view and there is no forcible
administering of any abnomis substance or any other material to
it much less to assault or of any dumpting excrete, waste matter
or cascade etc., Hence, P.R.C. number allotted by the learned
Magistrate is held unsustainable, with a direction to close the
said P.R.C. and take case on file afresh as C.C. to try for other
offences as Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has no
application.
Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 21-07-2015
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6425 OF 2015
21-07-2015
T.V.S.Kuppuswamy.Petitioner
The State of Telangana, rep., by Public Prosecutor and another Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Ms.Kranthi K.Vaka
Counsel for the Respondents: Learned Public Prosecutor for Telangana
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6425 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in
P.R.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor (Telangana) for the State before notice
to respondent No.2 and before admission. Perused the material
on record.
The petitioner is A1 among two accused of crime No.628 of
2014 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(D), 506, 323 r/w
34 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
the Act). It is after investigation, the police filed charge sheet
so far as the petitioner/A1 is concerned except for the offence
under Section 3(i)(ii) of the Act, the other offences mentioned in
the F.I.R. So far as A2 is concerned including Section 3(i)(ii) of
the Act. Undisputedly, A1 belongs to Scheduled caste, as can be
seen from the charge sheet. In fact, A1 and A2 moved for
anticipatory bail and this Court while holding Crl.P.Nos.8411 and
8422 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014 held that the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has no
application so far as A1 is concerned and anticipatory bail is
maintainable and however by finding not a case granting
anticipatory bail given liberty to surrender and move for regular
bail. Even from the very report of the de facto complainant,
though there is whisper in saying the accused along with his wife
brought liquor bottles and biryani in the car into his house and
they started drinking and forced him to consume, there is
nothing to say that they forcibly administered. What he says was,
while he was consuming appears voluntarily, there is alleged
outrage of modesty of his wife. Even there from Section 3(i) or
(ii) has no application to the facts. Once that is the case, the
alleged occurrence dated 29.06.2014 leave about any
explanation for the delay in reporting the occurrence
undisputedly on 05.07.2014. The offence punishable under
Sections 354, 354-D and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. so far as accused
concerned are triable by the Magistrate. Thus, there are no
grounds to commit the case to the Court of Sessions covered by
P.R.C.No.25 of 2015 on the file of XVII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.
Now, it is one of the contentions further by the learned
counsel for the petitioner/A1 that in addition to what is referred
supra of no case to be tried by the Court of Sessions to commit
by the learned Magistrate, in impugning the PRC proceedings
pending before Magistrate, that there is delay in reporting the
occurrence.
It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that
F.I.R. itself contains an explanation. It is premature for this
Court at this stage as to the delay and the alleged explanation
sustainable or not but for to decide by the trial Court. Now, as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner there are
improvements in the statements of the so called witnesses LWs 3
to 7. It is true from reading of F.I.R. and from the statement of
LW.1, who set the law in motion, LW.2 victim and there is
nothing about presence of LW.3 their daughter aged about 7
years, leave about any persons or gathering of LWs.4 to 9 of the
charge sheet to say they are the so called eye witnesses. It is for
the reason in the very explanation for the so called delay, what
the de facto complainant in the report as well as in his statement
so also by the victim and LW.2 in her statement, stated is the
accused allegedly threatened them not to disclose to anybody
and not even their case of any hue and cry and therefrom
gathering of neighbours. It is having they left the village and
after one week allegedly came back and there from reported the
police. So far as these improvements concerned, it is also a
matter to be elicited in trial, as it is premature for this Court to
say F.I.R. coupled with the statements of LWs.1 and 2 is not
suffice to sustain other accusations.
Having regard to the above, the petition before admission
from the hearing of the petitioner/A1 and the 1st
respondent/State represented by Public Prosecutor and before
notice to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, disposed of
holding that there is no case triable by the Court of Sessions for
the offence under Section 3(i) or (ii) of the Act not attracted for
no occurrence in the public view and there is no forcible
administering of any abnomis substance or any other material to
it much less to assault or of any dumpting excrete, waste matter
or cascade etc., Hence, P.R.C. number allotted by the learned
Magistrate is held unsustainable, with a direction to close the
said P.R.C. and take case on file afresh as C.C. to try for other
offences as Section 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has no
application.
Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 21-07-2015
Comments
Post a Comment