IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.766 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4531/2006)
Asmathunnisa ... Appellant
State of A.P. represented by the
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad & Another ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the Headmistress in the Little Star School located at Gayatri Hills, Yousufguda, Hyderabad has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.2127 of 2006.
3. It may be pertinent to mention that her husband Mohd. Samiuddin and the appellant are being prosecuted for an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short `the 1989 Act').
4. The appellant filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has declined to quash the proceedings.
5. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:
A complaint was filed against the appellant and her husband Mohd. Samiuddin on 09.02.2006 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, which reads as under: "I am to inform you that just besides my house a building bearing No.8-2-293/82/B/60, in 1+3 storied building, a school is being run from 1 to 10th class. I have informed the management of the school with regard to sound pollution. I have also submitted representation to the
After reading the news, the School management, Smt. Asmatunnisa and her husband namely Md. Samiuddin came to my house at 9.00 a.m., when I was not there. Md. Samiuddin abused in filthy language by naming caste and asked my wife, R. Sridevi, without even looking that she is a lady, that where did she sent me and also said that "AA LAMBADODU", "let him come home today we will settle the matter with him." Smt. Asmatunnisa also abused my wife. Smt. Anuradha, who is staying opposite to my house was the eye witness for the incident." The significant part of this complaint is that the offending words were admittedly spoken by Mohd. Samiuddin, the husband of the appellant. He abused Sridevi's husband in filthy language by naming caste and said that "AA LAMBADODU", "let him come home today we will settle the matter with him." At that time, admittedly Sridevi's husband was not present.
6. The appellant has also been implicated because she had accompanied her husband to the house of the complainant. Admittedly, the appellant did not utter offending words. It would be relevant to set out relevant provisions of law as under:
7. Section 3 sub-section (1) sub-section (x) of the 1989 Act is reproduced as under: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheuled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- xxx xxx xxx intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that:
A. According to the complaint, no offence under the aforesaid section can be made out against the appellant because the ingredients of the offence are not made out. In the complaint so called offending words were not even attributed to the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant merely accompanied her husband and the offending words were spoken by the husband of the appellant, therefore, the appellant in this appeal by no stretch of imagination can be held guilty of the offence under the section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act.
B. According to the section, any word which intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is an offence under the 1989 Act. In the instant case, the husband of Sridevi was not present when the offending words, if any, were spoken by the husband of the appellant. In absence of real aggrieved person present at that point of time, no offence under the said section can be made out against the appellant.
C. It is not established that the words were spoken by a person who was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
D. The entire incident is alleged to have taken place at the residence of Sridevi and not in any place within public view.
E. None of the ingredients of this offence are present in the instant case. Even if the contents of the complaint in its entirety are taken as correct and true even then no offence is made out against the appellant.
9. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Kerala High Court in E. Krishnan Nayanar v. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan & Others 1997 Crl. L.J. 2036. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are paras 12, 13 and 18. The said paragraphs read as under: "12. A reading of Section 3 shows that two kinds of insults against the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are made punishable - one as defined under sub-section (ii) and the other as defined under sub-section (x) of the said section.
A combined reading of the two sub-sections shows that under section (ii) insult can be caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood, and to cause such insult, the dumping of excreta etc. need not necessarily be done in the presence of the person insulted and whereas under sub-section (x) insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view of the expression "in any place within public view".
The words "within public view", in my opinion, are referable only to the person insulted and not to the person who insulted him as the said expression is conspicuously absent in sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of Act 3/1989. By avoiding to use the expression "within public view" in sub-section (ii), the Legislature, I feel, has created two different kinds of offences an insult caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, even in his absence, by dumping excreta etc. in his premises or neighbourhood and an insult by words caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes "within public view" which means at the time of the alleged insult the person insulted must be present as the expression "within public view" indicates or otherwise the Legislature would have avoided the use of the said expression which it avoided in sub-section (ii) or would have used the expression "in any public place".
13. Insult contemplated under sub-section (ii) is different from the insult contemplated under sub- section (x) as in the former a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes gets insulted by the physical act and whereas is the latter he gets insulted in public view by the words uttered by the wrongdoer for which he must be present at the place. xxx xxx xxx 18. As stated by me earlier the words used in sub- section (x) are not "in public place", but "within public view" which 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. In my view, the entire allegations contained in the complaint even if taken to be true do not make out any offence against the petitioner".
10. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in any place but within public view", which means that 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.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that, in any event, the words were not attributed to the appellant. She merely accompanied her husband to that place even according to the allegation in the complaint and she did not utter offending words. According to appellant, in the facts and circumstances of this case, Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act is not attracted.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to a judgment of this Court Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2008) 12
13. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and ambit of the High Court's power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under section 482 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.
14. The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
15. In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3
16. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2
17. In Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992) 4
18. In Dr Raghubir Sharan v. State of Bihar (1964) 2
19. In the said case, the court also observed that the inherent powers can be exercised under this section by the High Court (1) to give effect to any order passed under the Code; (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the court; (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
20. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1964 AC 1254, Lord Ried at page 1296 expressed his view "there must always be a residual discretion to prevent anything which savours of abuse of process" with which view all the members of the House of Lords agreed but differed as to whether this entitled a Court to stay a lawful prosecution.
21. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in (1992) Suppl.1
22. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Thus, this court made it clear that 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 to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
a. 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.
b. 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 Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
c. 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.
d. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
e. 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 grounds for proceeding against the accused.
f. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings 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.
g. 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."
23. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another (2005) 1
24. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12
25. In Devendra and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 7
26. In State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh and Others (2010) 11
27. In a recent decision in M. Mohan v. The State 2011 (3) SCALE 78 this Court again had an occasion to consider the case of similar nature and this court held that if all the facts mentioned in the complaint are accepted as correct in its entirety and even then the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence, in such a case the High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions are quashed under its inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
28. When we apply the ratio of the settled principles of law to the facts of this case, then, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the complaint qua the appellant only to prevent abuse of the process of law.
29. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and quash the complaint qua the appellant in Crime No.50 of 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
30. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of
............................................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)
............................................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)
March 29, 2011