under Section 323 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 = Under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within a public view is an offence punishable. The allegation is that the petitioner along with some others abused the de facto complainant and two others in the name of their caste, assaulted and beat them. Therefore, prima facie an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid P.R.C.

CRLP 77 / 2013

CRLPSR 194 / 2013

PETITIONERRESPONDENT
MR.B.NEDUCHEZHIAN @ B.NADINJAYAM @ NADIAM, CHITTOOR.,  VSE.LATHA, CHITTOOR DT., AND ANR, REP PP.,
PET.ADV. : CHINTAPALLI SRINIVASRESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.482 Cr.p.c Quash the P.R.CDISTRICT:  CHITTOOR
FILING DATE:  03-01-2013POSTING STAGE :  FOR ADMISSIONDISPOSED ON  :  04-01-2013  DIS
REG. DATE    :   03-01-2013LISTING DATE :  04-01-2013STATUS   :  ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):K.C.BHANU    

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 77 of 2013

ORDER:

The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.4 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nagari, Chittoor District.  The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.7 in the above case.
2.       It is alleged that on 25.04.2010 at about 9 a.m. while
de facto complainant and two others were proceeding to the Congress party office, the present petitioner along with others abused the de facto complainant and two others as ‘Mala Lanjallara’, obstructed them and beat them with hands.  Accused No.1 slapped on the cheek of de facto complainant. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered under Section 323 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x)
 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) and  after completion of investigation, police filed Charge sheet. 
3.       Three witnesses were examined to speak about the incident.  Under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within a public view is an offence punishable.  The allegation is that the petitioner along with some others abused the de facto complainant and two others in the name of their caste, assaulted and beat them.  Therefore, prima facie an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid P.R.C.


4.       Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
          Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions pending in this Criminal Petition, if any, shall stand dismissed.

_______________________
JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
4th January, 2013
Anr/PN






                             

 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU





                                                               













                                             
























CRIMINAL PETITION No. 77 of 2013


                                                                               

Date: 04.01.2013


                                     
Anr/PN

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.