ASMATHUNNISA versus STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD & ANOTHER

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1116 · Decided: 29-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 3 S.C.R. 1116 
A 
ASMATHUNNISA 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC 
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD & 
ANOTHER 
· 
B 
(Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2011) 
MARCH 29, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
C 
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s. 3(1)(x) - Punishment for offences 
of atrocities against a member of SC/ST - Appellant's 
husband speaking offending words by naming caste against 
the complainant in presence of his wife, when the complainant 
D himself was not present - Incident took place at the residence 
of complainant - Prosecution of the appellant and her 
husband uls. 3 (1)(x) - Petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. by the 
appellant - Dismissed by the High Court - On appeal held:· 
For offence u/s. 3(1 )(x), the public must view the person being 
E insulted for which he must be present which is not the case 
herein - Even if all the facts mentioned in the complaint are 
accepted as correct in its entirety, the complaint does not 
disclose the essential ingredients of an offence - Thus, the 
High Court should ensure that such frivolous prosecutions are 
F quashed under its inherent powers uls. 482 Cr.P. C. - Order 
of the High Court set aside - Complaint qua appellant . 
quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482. 
G 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Scope and 
ambit of - Explained. 
According to the prosecution, husband of 'S', filed 
complaint alleging that the husband of the appellant 
spoke offending words against him in presence of his 
wife, using filthy language by naming caste and others 
H 
1116 
ASMATHUNNISA v. STATE OF AP. & ANR. 
1117 
words while he was himself not present. The incident A 
allegedly took place at the residence of the complainant. 
The appellant and her husband were prosecuted for an 
offence 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 High Court 
B 
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for 
quashing the procf:edings, and the same was dismissed. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appi;!al. 
The appellant contended that no offence under 
Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act, could be made out against C 
the appellant because the ingredients of the offence are 
not made out; that in the complaint so called offending 
words were not even attributed to the appellant; that the 
appellant merely accompanied her husband and:the 
offending words were spoken by the husband of ~he. D 
appellant; that the husband of 'S' was not present when · 
the offending words, if any, were spoken by the husband ' 
of the appellant and 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; that the 
E 
entire incident allegedly took place at the residence of 'S' 
and not in any place within public view; and that even if · 
the contents of the complaint in its entirety are taken as 
correct and true even then no offence is made out 
.. against the appellant. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The words used in Section 3 (1) (x) of the 
:~heduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 
of "'~rocities) Act, 1989 are 'in any place but within public G 
view',\'. •-:ch means that the public must view the person 
being insulted for which he must be present and no 
offence on the allegations under the said Section gets 
attracted if the person is not present. [Para 10) [1124-F-
G] 
H 
1118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 
though wide, have to be exercised sparingly, carefully 
and with great caution and only when such exercise is 
justified by the tests specifically laid down In this Section 
itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement 
B of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice 
is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would 
be justified In preventing injustice by invoking Inherent 
powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. 
[Para 13) [1125-F-G] 
· 
c 
2.2. If all the facts mentioned in the complaint are 
accepted as correct in its entirety and even then the 
complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of 
an offence, in such a case the High Court should ens ...... 
that such frivolous prosecutions are quashed u ... :er its 
D inherent powers under Section 482 of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.