PRC No. 62 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

respondent and t he learned Public Prosecut or, appearing for t he first respondent .

The com plaint is filed by t he de fact o com plainant st at ing t hat he is t he owner of 53 cent s of land in Survey No.58 in Thot apalem village and t hat t he ot her lands were also given t o backward class people of t heir village. On 29.05.2011 at 8.30 AM, A2 obst ruct ed t he com plainant and t heir m en and ot her assignees and clandest inely ent ered int o t he land assigned t o t he com plainant and obst ruct ed t hem from ploughing and got arrest ed t he driver of t he t ract or and also seized t he t ract or and also got arrest ed a person by nam e At t ada Shankar w ho was not connect ed wit h t he disput e. There was anot her person by nam e Dabarika Shankar Rao and in spit e of t he prot est m ade by t he com plainant and ot her assignees, he abused t he 2 com plainant and ot hers in t heir cast e nam e. Then t hey gave a report t o t he St at ion House Officer ( A4) I Town Police St at ion, Vizianagaram and far from regist ering a case against t he accused, A4 j oined hands wit h A1 t o A3.

These being t he allegat ions in t he com plaint , t he com plainant in his sw orn st at em ent slight ly im proves his version and st at es t hat when he went t o t he police st at ion and report ed t he m at t er t o t he SI of Police, who t ore t he report given by t hem and asked t hem t o do what ever t hey like. The offences alleged are under Sect ions 4 and 8( b) of t he Act .

A perusal of t he com plaint shows t hat t he allegat ions wit h regard t o t he said offences are only against t he Tahsildar, Vizianagaram , who is shown as A2 in t his case. Hence, on t he face of t he com plaint , no case is found against ot her accused wit h regard t o t he alleged offences. Hence, t here need not be any hesit at ion in quashing t he proceedings against t he ot her accused, A1, A3 and A4, who are t he pet it ioners respect ively.

Wit h regard t o t he allegat ions against A2, t he counsel for t he pet it ioners subm it s t hat a report was given by t he Tahsildar alleging t respass against t he com plainant herein and based on t he said report , a case was regist ered for t he offence under Sect ions 447, 427 read wit h Sect ion 34 I PC.

The report is t o t he effect t hat t he disput ed land was t aken over and was allot t ed t o landless poor for agricult ural purpose in t he year

1980. Since t he allot t ees failed t o bring t he land under cult ivat ion, t he 3 above land was resum ed t o t he Governm ent and t he original allot t ees filed WP.No.25832 of 2007 and a st at us quo order was issued. Thereaft er, t he said writ pet it ion w as dism issed on 18.04.2011. The MRI inform ed him t hat a person was ploughing t he land wit h a t ract or at about 7 AM on 29.05.2011 and when asked, t he said person revealed his nam e as Nakkella Sankara Rao and t hat he is working as a t ract or driver wit h t he owner of t he t ract or i.e. Bot cha Paparao.

The counsel for t he pet it ioners subm it s t hat t he report of t he Tahsildar would show t hat t he present com plainant was not present at t he spot and no allegat ion w as m ade against t he com plainant in t he said report . Hence, t he quest ion of A2 abusing t he com plainant herein does not arise.

The counsel for t he second respondent – com plainant subm it s t hat t he com plainant was, in fact , present on t he sport and t hat t he com plaint discloses t he sam e.

A perusal of t he com plaint would show t hat it is m ent ioned in t he com plaint t hat t he com plainant was present on t he spot . His sworn st at em ent also shows t hat he was present when t he incident occurred. Hence, unless t he enquiry is conduct ed int o t he said aspect t he t rut h cannot com e t o light . There are several disput es bet ween t he part ies wit h regard t o t he land. The accused, aft er dism issal of t he writ pet it ion, in which st at us quo was grant ed in favour of t he com plainant , preferred an appeal but t here was no st ay grant ed in t he appeal. The com plainant filed WP.No.10939 of 2011 and st ay was grant ed. 4

The counsel for t he respondent , on t he basis of t he said fact , subm it s t hat t he com plainant was in possession of t he propert y. But t he order in WP.No.25832 of 2007 shows t hat t he land was resum ed by t he Governm ent .

Be t hat as it m ay, t he issue of possession was being agit at ed by t he part ies and t here is no conclusive finding given by t he Court s wit h regard t o possession, as a writ appeal is pending against t he order in t he above writ pet it ion. Hence, it cannot be said t hat m erely based on t he possession t hat t he alleged offence could not have happened. Hence, in view of t he above, t his Court opines t hat t he proceedings so far A2 are concerned cannot be quashed. I n t he light of t he above, t he crim inal pet it ions is allowed in part and t he proceedings against t he pet it ioners, who are A1, A3 and A4 respect ively, in PRC.No.62 of 2011 on t he file of t he Special Court for t rial of Cases under t he Scheduled Cast es & Scheduled Tribes ( Prevent ion of At rocit ies) Act cum Addit ional Dist rict and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram , are hereby quashed and t he crim inal pet it ion st ands dism issed so far as A2 is concerned. As a sequel, t he m iscellaneous pet it ions, if any pending, shall st and closed. Novem ber 13, 2018 DSK __________ T. RAJANI , J