Sections 3 and 4(1) of A.P. Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 (for short A.P Ragging Act) and Section 509 IPC. =for Quashing under sec.482 of Cr.P.C. - the first objection Ragging act applies only to freshers and Juniors but not to Seniors is a ridiculous argument - and held that there is no such a narrow interpretation to the definition as per sec.2(e) and (f) of A.P.Ragging Act - Second objection that She is not a Christian as such she can not be considered as a Student of Christian Colleges - their lordships held that When the application for admission is supported caste certificate by MRO that she is a christian , the question of joining a Hindu in Christian college does not arise - and the third objection that the accused an innocent and management cooked up this false case as he raised some mistakes in management -their lordships held that Thus the material placed by prosecution show the prima-facie case against the petitioner. So, at the outset, none of the points raised by the petitioner are sufficient to quash the proceedings. Hence, he has to face the trial and prove his innocence, if any.




THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          

Criminal Petition No.14605 of 2014

03-06-2015

Puli Dinesh Babu..... Petitioner

The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Telangana, High Court,
Hyderabad and others.. Respondents  

Counsel for Petitioner : Party-in-person

Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:
 1)  2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 751

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO        
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14605 of 2014  

ORDER:
        In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused
seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1167 of 2012 on the file of X
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
2)      On the report given by defacto complainant, the police of Gandhinagar
P.S registered a case in Cr.No.263 of 2012 and after investigation laid charge
sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 3 and 4(1) of A.P.
Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 (for short A.P Ragging Act) and Section
509 IPC. The prosecution case briefly is that the defacto complainant
M.Sreedevi was a final year student of Bachelor of Theology (B.Th.) in
Andhra Christian Theological College, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. The
accused was pursuing 3rd year Bachelor Divinity (BD) course in the same
college and he was ragging her since last two years in different manner and
also other students.
3 a)    Denying the allegations the petitioner/accused who appeared in
person, firstly argued that the 3rd respondent/complainant was not a student
of Andhra Christian Theological College (ACT College) in the sense that in
the said college, Christians alone will be admitted in different courses but
though the complainant was not a Christian, she got admitted into College
illegally and hence, she cannot be considered as student of ACT College and
the provisions of A.P. Ragging Act have no application to her.
b)      Secondly, he argued that when the definition of student given in
Section 2(f) of A.P. Ragging Act is perused, it would disclose that the
emphasis is on fresher or a junior student who is subjected to ragging but not
a senior student and therefore, even if the allegations in the complaint and
charge sheet are uncontroverted, the provisions of A.P. Ragging Act will
have no application to the present case since the complainant on her own
admission was a student of B.Th. final year.
c)      Thirdly, he argued that the petitioner was an intelligent and innocent
student. While he was pursuing 3rd year B.D. Course he used to point out
certain illegalities of the college management and therefore, the college
authorities set up the third respondent/complainant to give a false complaint.
On the above pleas the petitioner sought for quashment of proceedings.
4)      In oppugnation, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently
argued that the statements of complainant and other students would clearly
show the vigorous ragging activities conducted by the petitioner and in view
of strong material placed against him by the prosecution, his petition may be
dismissed.
5)      In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is:
     Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?
6) POINT: The admitted facts are that during the relevant period the
petitioner/accused was pursuing 3rd year B.D. Course in ACT College. The
accusation against him is that he ragged the complainant and other students
in the said college and tried to outrage their modesty. The first argument of
the petitioner is that Senate of Serampore College (University) would offer
Theology degrees to Christians alone and the complainant was not a
Christian but illegally got admitted into ACT College and therefore, she
cannot be termed as student within the meaning of A.P. Ragging Act.
a)      In this context, when the copy of Admission Form for 20092010
issued by ACT College, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad filed by the petitioner is
perused, one of the admission requirements therein reads thus:
(c) He/she seeking admission into B.D. Five Years/B.D. Four years
must be a Christian as per the academic records. In case of the
candidates coming from adult Baptism practicing churches they
should secure a declaration that they are Christians from concerned
MRO (Mandal Revenue Officer) and a copy of the same should be
sent along with application.
So, basing on this requirement, perhaps the petitioner argued that student
who seeks admission must be Christian. His contention is that complainant is
not a Christian and she was admitted into college illegally.  In this context, a
perusal of marks list issued by Senate of Serampore College (University)
relating to the students of ACT College, Hyderabad for the Examination
Paper Registration, 2013 shows the particulars of complainant as follows:
Student ID
Roll No.
Name
Medium
Papers
completed
BTH/6765/10
14397
Sreedevi
Mamidala
Telugu
Total 7 + 11
Therefore, as per the record produced by the accused the complainant was a
student of ACT College during the relevant period. For the purpose of A.P.
Ragging Act, student as defined under Section 2(f) means a person who is
admitted to an educational institution and whose name is lawfully borne on
the attendance register thereof.  So long as the college authorities or a
competent Court of law has not declared that the complainant got admission
illegally, she must be held to be a student of that college. Therefore, the
first argument of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
b)      The second argument of the petitioner is that as per the definition of
student, the emphasis is on fresher or a junior student who is subjected to
ragging but not a senior student, and in view of the fact that complainant is a
final year B.Th. student, the provisions of the Act have no application to her.
This argument, it must be said, is farfetching and ridiculous. The object of
A.P. Ragging Act is to prohibit ragging in educational institutions in the
State of Andhra Pradesh. In this Act, the definitions of ragging and
student are given in Section 2 (e) and (f) as follows:
(e) ragging means doing an act which causes or is likely to cause
insult or annoyance of fear or apprehension or threat or intimidation
or outrage of modesty or injury to a student; (f) student means a
person who is admitted to an educational institution and whose name
is lawfully borne on the attendance register thereof;
(f) student means a person who is admitted to an educational
institution and whose name is lawfully borne on the attendance
register thereof.
When the above two provisions are conjunctly studied, one can understand
that ragging is an act which is aimed at a student to cause or likely to cause
insult or annoyance of fear or apprehension or threat or intimidation or
outrage of modesty or injury. So, if the acts of offender-student produce any
of the above results against the victim student the offender-student can be
held liable for ragging. Then the definition of student would show that
he/she is a person who is admitted to an educational institution and whose
name is lawfully borne on the attendance register. The phrase admitted to
educational institution does not necessarily confine to fresh or junior
student alone to hold that she/he, if subjected to ragging only, the provisions
of the Act are applicable. Such a narrow interpretation as propounded by the
petitioner will defeat the avowed object of the Act. When the history of
ragging is perused, it is true that in yesteryears in educational institutions
there was a practice of senior students gently ragging the junior students or
freshers to dispel their inhibitions and to freely mingle with seniors and seek
their good advice in the course of pursuing studies. Over the years this
practice of healthy ragging slowly metamorphosised into unhealthy practice
of teasing, taunting, harassing and persecuting the freshers or junior students
of educational institutions by the seniors. Now days, we frequently come
across the news of even the fresh and junior students committing acts of
ragging against senior students more particularly, against the girl students.
As already stated supra, the object of A.P. Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997
is to prohibit ragging in educational institutions in respect of all categories
of
students but not in respect of junior students alone.  If that were the
intendment of Legislators, the term student perhaps would have been
defined as a person who is newly/freshly admitted into educational
institution and whose name is lawfully borne on the attender register thereof.
Since such is not the case, it is difficult to accept the argument of the
petitioner.
7)      In the sensational ragging case reported in Yelchuri Manohar v. State
of A.P.  the facts were that the deceased girlSri Lakshmi was a final year
MCA student in Sharada PG college, Vijayawada and on 21.06.2004 when  
she was preparing for viva-voce examination sitting on the bench of the class
room, the accusedY.Manohar who was her classmate went behind her and    
brutally hacked her to death on the ground that she did not accept his love.
Apart from convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 302
IPC, the learned Sessions Judge convicted him also for the offences under
Section 4(ii) of AP Prohibition of Ragging Act, Section 27(3) of Arms Act
and Section 201 IPC but no punishment was awarded for the said offences as
he was ordered to suffer extreme penalty of capital punishment. In the
appeal, the High Court converted the death sentence imposed by the trial
Court into life imprisonment. Thus, it is clear that irrespective of the fact
that
both deceased and accused were of the final year students, the accused was
charged for the offence under Section 4 of A.P. Ragging Act.  Hence, having
regard to the precedential jurisprudence, the argument of petitioner cannot be
accepted.
8)      Thirdly, it was argued by the petitioner that he is an intelligent and
innocent student and since he questioned the illegalities of the management,
he was falsely implicated in this case. It must be noted that this is an aspect
which has to be decided after a full-fledged trial.  As of now, apart from the
161 Cr.P.C statement of the complainant, the statements of LW.3M.Deepa  
Rani, student of B.D IV year, LW.4P.Anil Paul Chakravarthy, student of
Final year, LW.5P.Mahesh Babu, student of B.D Final year, LW.7  
D.Vamshidar, student of B.D Final Year etc., would clearly depict the
virulent form of ragging activities. Thus the material placed by prosecution
show the prima-facie case against the petitioner. So, at the outset, none of
the points raised by the petitioner are sufficient to quash the proceedings.
Hence, he has to face the trial and prove his innocence, if any.
9)      In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
        As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________  
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J    
Date: 03.06.2015 

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.

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