Case Brief on Dharmana Dharma Rao Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others


Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

Case title: Dharmana Dharma Rao Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlada Rajashekhar Rao

 Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 13516/2018

 Date: 27.03.2024

 Advocate for the Petitioner: P NAGENDRA REDDY

 Brief facts 

The factual matrix of the case is that the complaint was filed by the 2nd Respondent/Complainant in which it was alleged that all the accused persons came to her house and abused her by the name of her caste with an intent to humiliate her in the public view and also threatened to kill. Thereafter, the police investigated the case and the report was filed by the police referring to the case as false. Aggrieved by this, the protest petition was filed by the 2nd Respondent and the said was allowed. Then, the present criminal petition is filed in order to quash the proceedings.

 Contentions of the Petitioner 

The Petitioner contended that the statement was not made in a public view as contemplated under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

 Contentions of the Respondent 

The Respondent contended that the accused had not challenged the order of taking cognizance or even the charge sheet filed and prayed to quash the proceedings.

 Observations of the court 

The Hon’ble court observed that a public view would undoubtedly be present if an offence were to occur outside the building, such as on a lawn outside a home that is visible to people from a road or path outside the boundary wall. As opposed to this, it wouldn't be offensive if the comment was made inside a building and some people from the general public were there, not only family or friends. This is because it wouldn't be in public view. The court relied upon the judgment titled Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand.

The court noted that in the instant case, the petitioner abused the 2nd respondent by touching her caste name outside of her house, in front of all the accused and other persons, who are not relatives and friends of the complainant, who were present at the scene of offense.

Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the abuse was made in the public view.

 The decision of the court 

With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal petition.