Sec.18 of SC/ST (POA) Act – anticipatory Bail – alleged offence as per the allegations not taken place in public in order to humiliate the complainant – and as such the accused is entitled for anticipatory bail – their lordships of High court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the accused = S.Venkatda Lakshmamma ....Petitioner -vs- The State of Andhra Pradesh, SHO Police Station, Yellanuru, Anantapur Dist, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.... Respondent= 2014( Feb.Part )judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/ filename=10916


 Though Section 18 of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 enacts a bar against granting anticipatory bail if an
offence is committed under any of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, in the
instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.  Each and every dispute in respect
of every Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe member with non schedule caste or non
schedule tribe member, cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of
the Act.  The said provision is attracted only if mens rea for commission of the
offence under the said Act exists.  In the present case, the ingredients of
Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted and therefore, the petitioner can
be granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 18 of
the Act.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.  .  The petitioner is therefore,
directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Yellanur Police Station,
Anantapur District, within 30 days from today and thereafter she shall be
released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum each to the
satisfaction of the said Station House Officer.
2014( Feb.Part )judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/ filename=10916
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO       

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1160 of 2014   

11-02-2014

S.Venkatda Lakshmamma ....Petitioner   

The State of Andhra Pradesh, SHO Police Station, Yellanuru, Anantapur Dist,
rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Seena Kumar

Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO       

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1160 OF 2014    

ORDER: 

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
Earlier to the present report, the petitioner gave a report to the police which
reads as follows:- The marriage of the petitioner's daughter was performed on 3-
11-2012.  There is a custom in the village, according to which, the persons
belonging to Madiga community used to beat the drums at the time of marriage on
receiving some amount from the bride's parents.  The petitioner purchased four
drums and gave them to Madiga people for the purpose of beating them at the time
of marriage of her daughter and she also gave some amount to them.  But, the
Madiga people namely (1) Gangaraju, (2) Madiga Peddanna, (3) Madiga Venkatappa  
and (4) Madiga Chinna Naganna, did not beat the drums as per the custom.
According to the petitioner, they insulted her family members at the time of her
daughter's marriage at the instance of their opponents in the village.
According to the petitioner, her relatives gave warning to Madiga people not to
beat drums at the time of the marriage of petitioner's daughter and if they do
so, they would be sent out of the village and on that there was a dispute
between the petitioner's family and her opponents in the village.
The version of the petitioner is that owing to the said dispute, the following
persons namely (1) Akuthota Obula Reddy, (2) Matka Sriramam Jalaja Reddy, (3)
Pandirlapalli Bramhananda Reddy, (4) Peddi Ramam Jalaja Reddy, (5) Prasada 
Reddy, (6) Prabhakara Reddy, (7) Obula Reddy and (8) Kuruba Sathya, trespassed 
into their house while the petitioner's husband was having meal and assaulted
him and also \threw boulders at him, due to which, he received a bleeding injury
on his leg.  Basing on the report, the police registered a case in Crime No.105
of 2013 of Yellanur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections,
147, 148, 323, 427, 506 and 149 of I.P.C., and the said case is now pending.
The version of the petitioner is that as she lodged a report against the
aforesaid persons, they set up the de facto complainant in the present case and
got filed the report with false allegations.
As per the report in the present case, on 6-12-2013 while the de facto
complainant and others were beating drums in connection with another marriage in
the village, the petitioner and her husband obstructed them and took away the
drums from their hands on the ground that they did not beat the drums at the
marriage of their daughter and also stating that the drums were purchased by the
husband of the petitioner and so saying, she took away the drums into her house.
On the next day morning the de facto complainant and others went to the house of
the petitioner and asked her to return the drums, but she refused to return them
on the ground that they did not beat the drums at the marriage of their daughter
as per the custom.  Basing on the aforesaid allegations, a case in Crime No.106
of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered in Yellanur Police Station.
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime No.106 of 2013.
Though it is mentioned in the First Information Report that the petitioner
abused the de facto complainant and others in their caste name, the said
utterances were not made with a view to insult or humiliate the de facto
complainant and others in a place within public view.  The essential ingredient
of the offence is, causing intentional insult or intimidation, which is absent
in the present case.  The version of the petitioner is that she was obviously
implicated in the instant case at the instance of their opponents by setting up
the de facto complainant for the purpose of lodging the First Information Report
in the present case is quite probable.  More over the entire allegations
mentioned in the First Information Report and also in the earlier First
Information Report in Crime No.105 of 2013 obviously indicate that a dispute
arose between the petitioner and de facto complainant and his men on the issue
that the de facto complainant and his men even after taking money from the
petitioner, failed to beat the drums as per the custom in the village in
connection with the marriage of the petitioner's daughter.  Though Section 18 of
the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 enacts a bar against granting anticipatory bail if an
offence is committed under any of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, in the
instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.  Each and every dispute in respect
of every Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe member with non schedule caste or non schedule tribe member, cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.  The said provision is attracted only if mens rea for commission of the
offence under the said Act exists.  In the present case, the ingredients of
Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted and therefore, the petitioner can
be granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 18 of
the Act.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.  The petitioner is therefore,
directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Yellanur Police Station,
Anantapur District, within 30 days from today and thereafter she shall be
released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum each to the
satisfaction of the said Station House Officer.
_________________  
R.KANTHA RAO,J   

Date: 11-02-2014

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.

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.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.