Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal allowed a criminal petition and directed that the proceedings pending before the trial court be quashed. The court held that the allegations in the case did not attract the statutory requirements under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, as the alleged acts were not committed in public view. The final directive of the court stated that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, leading to their quashing.

The matter arose from a complaint lodged on 04.04.2019 by the de-facto complainant against the petitioners. According to the complaint, the complainant and the 1st petitioner were college classmates. The complainant left for Australia in 2003 to pursue higher education and returned to Hyderabad in 2006, subsequently establishing his architectural and interior design business in 2007. The 1st petitioner married her brother-in-law, with whom she had a daughter, but the marriage ended in divorce in 2009-10.

Also Read: Indian Telegraph Act | Supreme Court Strikes Down Uniform Compensation Award | Recommends Creation Of Statutory Appeal Against District Judge’s Orders Under S.16(3)

The complainant and the 1st petitioner entered into an inter-caste marriage on 19.01.2014. The complainant belonged to the Mala Scheduled Caste, while the petitioner belonged to the Kapu community. After their marriage, they resided in Hyderabad and purchased a car jointly. The complaint alleged that the family of the petitioner humiliated the complainant over his caste, used derogatory names, and burned his clothes at their residence.

The complainant stated that these tensions disturbed his marital life. He alleged that the petitioner criticized his parents and forced him to move out. The couple later resided separately in a rented luxury apartment, where disputes arose over lifestyle expenses. According to the complainant, the petitioner demanded a more lavish lifestyle, causing repeated arguments. In February 2017, the complainant moved to Mumbai for work but later reunited with the petitioner, who continued to reside primarily in Hyderabad, supported financially by the complainant.

In July 2018, after celebrating the petitioner’s birthday, the complainant alleged that she suddenly demanded divorce, accompanied by caste-based insults and threats. The petitioner allegedly threatened to ruin the complainant and his family, to file false cases, and humiliated him by smoking in the house. From 17.07.2018, she sent messages via WhatsApp insisting on divorce, citing cultural differences primarily related to caste.

The complainant agreed to a mutual divorce but requested return of money and joint assets. The petitioner allegedly refused, imposed conditions, and declined to appoint a lawyer or family member to facilitate the process. The complaint stated that she verbally abused the complainant, demanded that he leave the house, and threatened eviction and further harassment.

Based on the complaint, a case was registered under Section 504 IPC and the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The police initiated investigation, recorded witness statements, and verified caste certificates. The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the police action, which restrained coercive measures against her. Notices under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C were issued, and the investigation continued.

The petitioners argued that the allegations fell within the ambit of matrimonial disputes, culminating in a mutually agreed divorce granted in F.C.O.P. No.346 of 2019 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The divorce decree had been passed before the filing of the present complaint.

The petitioners contended that the alleged offences dated back to 2018, whereas the email containing specific allegations was sent nearly ten months later, raising doubts on credibility. They further argued that the incident did not occur in public view but within a domestic setting, thereby not attracting Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

The counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the petition, arguing that the investigation was complete and that the matter required a full-fledged trial. He asserted that whether the alleged incident occurred in private or public view was a matter of evidence, determinable during trial. He further relied upon judicial precedents, including Sudhakar v. State (2018) 5 SCC 435, to argue against quashing. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that as many as 10 witnesses were yet to be examined and that the truth could only be elicited through trial.

Justice E.V. Venugopal examined the submissions and the record of the case. The court stated: “the nature of those allegations does not clearly demonstrate any specific instance wherein the petitioners are shown to have abused or humiliated the de-facto complainant in the name of his caste, along with the place, time, and manner of such occurrence.”

The court further observed: “There is no material to indicate that the alleged incident occurred in a public place or in public view, as is required to attract the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 2015.”

The bench addressed the central issue before the court, stating: “whether the allegations made fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Another, wherein it was held that for the offence under the said Act to be attracted, the insult or intimidation must occur in public view.”

Referring to Sudhakar v. State, the court recorded: “it was reiterated that the occurrence must be public and aimed at humiliating the complainant on the basis of caste.”

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court stated: “the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose that the incident took place in a public place or was witnessed by any independent persons, as required under the law.” It further stated: “The alleged acts were part of domestic discord between the parties and appear to have occurred within the confines of a private residence.”

The court concluded that “the continuation of proceedings before the learned Trial Court, in respect of the alleged offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, would amount to an abuse of process of law.” It further held that “the allegations do not meet the statutory requirement of having been committed in public view, and therefore, no prima facie case is made out under the said provisions.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court | ‘No Sympathy for Encroachers’ | State Directed to Remove Illegal Road and Footpath Constructions, Officials Liable for Inaction

The High Court, after considering the submissions and the statutory requirements, held that the case did not attract the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. It recorded: “this Court, while placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Sudhakar v. State, finds it appropriate to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” The court held that “the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”

The court thus ordered: “Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in S.C.No.229 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.”

The court further directed: “Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

Case Title: XXX vs State

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3799 OF 2021

Bench: Justice E.V. Venugopal