The High Court · 2025

by Public Prosecutor High Court at 2 Thoorpati Sanjeevu, S/o Thoorpati Chandraiah aged 40 yrs, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Kondapaka Village and Mandal, Siddipet, Telanqana. 'e ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the SPL. SC. No. 126 of 2O2O and the consequent proceedings before the Ld. V Additional District and sessions Judge cum scisr Court at Sangareddy emanating therefrom. l.A. NO: 1OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in SPL. SC. No. 126 of 2O2O and the consequent proceedings before the Ld- V Additional District and sessions Judge cum SC/ST Court at Sangareddy including appearance of the pe,titioners. This Petitlon coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Madhavi Priya Mantena, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.25O OF 2O2L ORDER: The present 'Criminal Petition is frled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the pbtitioner/accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in SpL.SC.No. 126 of 2O2O on the file of learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge_ cum-SC/ST Court, Sangareddy, registered in Cr.No.370 of 2OI9 for the offences punishable under Sections ++2, +,22, 504, 506 of IPC and Section S(1) (d (r) (s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. 0

2. Heard learned counsel for the petit.ioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistalt public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service of notice. Perused the record.

3. The briel' facts of the case are that on 2g- 12-2019 at 13:00 hours, the complainant lodged a complaint with Kukunoorpalll Police Station stating that he has agricultural land in Sy.Nos.542, 543, which is located in 2 EW,J Crl.P.No.250 of 2021 the outskirts of Kondapaka Village and he is in possession of the said land. He planted castor oil crop. While so, on 24-12-2019 afternoon at about 12:OO hours, when the complainant was frot present at his agriculture field, one person by narne Dyava Mallareddy R/o Karimnagar trespassed into the land of the complainant with a Tractor and damaged the said castor oil crop. Then, the complainant asked the said Malla Reddy as to why he destroyed it, for which Malla Reddy abused ' the complainant in the name of his caste and threatened the complainant and tried to kill him with a stone. f Basing on the complaint made by the complainart, A CASE IS registered against petitioner/accused Cr.No.37O of 2O\9 of Kukunoorpally Police Station of Siddipet District

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.22 Guntas in Survey No.542/Ru and Survey No.543/Ru situated at Kondapaka Village and Manda-l, Siddipet vide registered sa-[e deed bearing Doc.No J E''I'J Crl.P.No.250 of 2021 6039/2006 dated 03.08.2006 from one Thoorpati Kistaiah/LWl0. He further submitted that the petitioner has got mutated his name in the Revenue records, obtajned Title deed., Pattadar passbook, Pahalies and 13-B Certificates from the Revenue Department and he is in peaceful possession of the said propert5r. He further submits that on 24.12.2O2O complainant/LW1 has trespassed into the property of the petitioner herein, upon questioning the same, the complainant threatened ' to implicate the petitioner in a false criminal case. He further submits that the complainant made a faJse clairryin respect of the propertv purchased by the petitioner herein ald hatched a plan to grab the property and falsely implicated the petitioner rn this criminal case.

5. He further submits that the Prosecution and the trial Court have failed to appreciate that the original handwritten complaint alleged about the date of alleged offence as 30.\2.2019. whereas, the FIR has been lodged on 28.12.2O19, this ground itself is self-sufficient to disbelieve the i,ersion of the Complainant. In view thereof, 4 EVV,T Crl.P.No.250 of 2021 the proceedings before the court below are required to be quashed. He further submitted that the Prosecution and court below have failed to understand that the dispute between the paqties are purely civil in nature and proceedings before the trial Court are nothing but a gross abuse of process of law with a view to take undue advantage thereof

6. He further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that witnesses No.LW3 to LW2l examinea by the Investigating Oflicer clearly demonstrates that the dispute is nothing but a civil dispute in regard {o the land purchased by the petitioner arrd the impugned proceedings is ex-facie illegal as it proceeds on the premise which is contrary to settled principles of law. Except the evidence of PWI and PW2 who are interested witnesses to the case of the prosecution, no independent witness supported the case. Further, the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427,5O4,506 of IPC and Section 3(t) (g) (r) (s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 does not attract as the petitioner is the owner of the subject property and he is

1.4.-7 5 ETY,J Crl.P.No.250 of 2021 cultivating his own lald. Hence, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition. 7 . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that unless and until iull-fledged trial is conducted, the truth cannot be elicited and interference of this Crturt at this juncture is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition

8. Having regard to the submissions made by. {he learned coun sel for the petitioner and learned Assistalt Public Prose<:utor and upon perusal of the !6 I Cr.p.C statements o1- LW3 to LW21 , none of the witnesses supported thr: case ol the prosecution and nowhere it is stated that the complainant was abused in the name of his caste. Hence, continuation of the proceedings ilgainst the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3(l) (g) (r) (s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 amounts to abuse of process of law, as such the proceedings against the petitionerT'accused in SPL.SC.No.126 of 2020 on the file of learned V Additiona_l District & Sessions Judge-cum- SC/ST Court, Sangareddy, registered for the offences \ \ 6 EVv,J CrLP.No.250 of 2021 under Sections 3(l) (e) (r) (s), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (pOA) Amendment Act, 2015 are hereby quashed.

9. Further, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in SPL.SC.No.126 of 2O2O on the hle of learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-SC/ST Court, Sangareddy, may go on.

10. With the above observation, this Criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if aly, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER '1 . The V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy 2. The Station House Officer, Kukunoorpally Police Station, Siddipet 3. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to M/s. Madhavi Priya Mantena, Advocate [OPUC] ' 5. Two CD CoPies VFI/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 14102t2025 I ) .\ f_ C) ir A \,+ 11 ilAR ztE ji'I,Att; .-r F rJ * I ORDER CRLP.No.250 of 2021 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION I //