ORDER
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge framed against the petitioner in S.C. No. 14 of 1994, in the Court of the Special Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Mahabubnagar and to transfer the case to regular Court for trial.
2. On the report of the father of one Dhamarla Yesumani, alleging commission of rape against her, a chargesheet was filed under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(ii)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner is the 1st accused in the case. A charge sheet has been framed under the above sections and the Spl. Judge commenced the trial and examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 on 22-3-1995. At this stage, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 1184 of 1995, before this Court for quashing the charges. While disposing of the said petition, this Court directed the petitioner to file a petition for discharge before the Spl. Court and directed the Spl. Judge to consider the said application on merits and to proceed with the trial. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 868 of 1995, in S.C. No. 14 of 1994, for discharging him. The said petition was dismissed by the Spl. Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this Crl. Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Spl. Court constituted under the Act has no jurisdiction to try the case, since the allegations disclosed in the chargesheet do not constitute offence under Section 3(ii)(v) of the Act in as much as no mention was made by the complainant that the offence has been committed by the petitioner ‘on the ground that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste’. I have perused the chargesheet. It is stated therein that the victim girl is the daughter of the complainant, who is a Harijan by caste. The victim is a divorcee. The petitioner is the landlord and the occurrence was said to have happened in his fields near the river. When the victim girl was taking water she was dragged towards the fields, pushed back on the ground and the petitioner raped her forcibly. When she raised cries she was beaten. On these facts the chargesheet has been filed and the Spl. Court framed the charges. P.Ws. 1 to 3 i.e., the father of the victim, the victim girl and the Doctor, respectively, have been examined on 22-3-1995. At that stage the petitioner came forward with this petition. The main contention raised before the Spl. Court is that the victim girl is not a Harijan by caste and that the provisions of the Act are not applicable. The said contention has been rejected.
4. From the allegations disclosed in the complaint it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case. It is evident that the petitioner has taken advantage of the woman working in the fields due to her poverty, which emboldened him to have committed rape. In the cases where the offences are tried under Act it is not necessary to allege that the offence has been committed on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, whether the accused has committed the offence on that ground or not has to be ascertained from the material gathered during the trial and it is not possible to say at the stage from the complaint itself that the petitioner has not committed the offence on the ground that the victim was a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In this case witnesses have already been examined and the entire evidence would have been recorded long back, but for this litigation and stay of the trial. It is significant to note that the petitioner has not taken this objection at the time of framing of the charge. The Court below was right in holding that this objection has to be taken earlier. Jurisdictional questions should be necessarily taken at the time before the trial is started or the charges are framed. The inherent powers of this Court cannot be invoked at any stage, which would cause unavoidable delay of the proceedings in the criminal matters. The counsel for the petitioner cited T. M. Obulesu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, . The offence alleged in that case is under S. 302, I.P.C. r/w Section 147, I.P.C. and charges were framed under Ss. 147, 148 and 302, I.P.C. r/w 149, I.P.C. It was found on facts of that case that the offence was not committed on the ground that the deceased and injured were members of Scheduled Tribes. The learned Judge gave an illustration; where two strangers were travelling in a train without knowing the caste of each other and an offence is committed, in those circumstances the provisions of Section 3(ii)(v) of the Act cannot be made applicable, since the offence was not evidently committed on the ground that the deceased was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the instant case the petitioner has known the caste of the victim girl. The facts in Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 Cri LJ 3054 (MP), are entirely different. The offence was under Section 3(i)(k) of the Act. Mere accosting a person and that too the incident not taking place within the public view, was held not to be an offence triable under the Act. In Ravindra Kumar Mishra v. State of Madhya Prades, 1995 Cri LJ 3060, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, having regard to the words of abuse used against the complainant ‘idiot and nonsense’ which have no reference to the community, held that the provisions of the Act are not applicable. The facts of this case are not apposite to the facts of the instant case. Here a person of the village taking the advantage of the woman of a Scheduled Caste has committed the rape. In any event since the trial is started, I do not think to interfere at this stage. The Criminal Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
5. Petition dismissed.