Case Brief: Asmathunnisa v State of A.P.

FACTS:
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 under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
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.
The appellant has, therefore, preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:
Whether the instant case is an instance of a frivolous prosecutions and is liable to be quashed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT:
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the following contention-

1. According to complaint, 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.
2. According   to   the   concerned section of the 1989 Act,   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 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.
3. It was also added that it   was   not   established   that   the   words   were   spoken   by   a person   who   was   not   a   member   of   Scheduled   Caste   or Scheduled Tribe.
4. Also, the  entire  incident  is   alleged  to  have   taken  place  at  the residence of Sridevi and not in any place within public view.

To support its arguments, reliance was placed on the cases E.  Krishnan   Nayanar   v   Dr.   M.A.   Kuttappan   &   Others  [1997 Crl. L.J. 2036] and Gorige   Pentaiah  v State of Andhra Pradesh & Others [(2008) 12 SCC 531].
HELD:
It was held by the apex Court that on applying the ratio of the settled principles of law evolved in the cases like R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866], to the   facts   of   the instant   case,   then in the opinion of the Court,  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.
Consequently,   the Supreme Court set   aside   the   impugned   judgment passed   by   the   High   Court   and   quashed   the   complaint   qua   the appellant.