The High Court · 2025

in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Spl. SC No. 1of 2021 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs Cases -cum- Vlll Additional District Sessions Judge at Nizamabad to secure the ends of justice as the allegations made against the petitione rs/accused are totally false and malafide and as such the continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law and the court. / l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in thr circumstances statecr in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to grant stay of arr further proceedings in Spr. SC No. 1 of ,, 021 on the fire of the court of the Special sessions Judge for SCs/srs caser; _cum_ Vlll Additional District sessrons Judge at Nizamabad which wari fired against the petitioners/Accused incruding their appearance pending disp, ar of the above crr.p. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin5y the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri V Rohith, Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. iMadhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No..r and r rne appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 7 ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMI NAL PETITION No.1497 of 2023 This Criminal petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in spr's c.No. r of 2021 0n the fire of the learned speciar sessions Judge for SCs/srs cases-cum-Vl, Additionar District Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, for the offences under section 506 read with section 34 of the lndian Penat Code, .1860 (for short ,tpC,), Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the schedured castes and the Schedured rribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 20.1 5 (for short the ,Act,).

2. Heard Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, Iearned Senior Counsel representing Ivlr'V Rohith, rearned counser for the petitioners and .\,rs. S.tVladhavi, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos..l and 2-State. There is no representation for respondent No.3_de faclo complainant. perused the record. 3' The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community, is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.2B gts. in sy No.202lE situated at Arsapaily Viilage sivar (hereinafter referred to as 'subject rand'). The de facto comprainant acquired the subject rand from 2 .- \ -.':- ':-'H .\. hisancestorsthrougharegisteredsaledeedbearingc:cumentNo.8739 of20lS,andheisinpossessionandenioymentofthesamesincethen. The de facfo complainant has also obtained interim orc -'r by approaching this Court by filing W-P No45633 of 2018' On 14 1Jz)lg' when the de facto complainant tied a banner and pasted a sticker on the compound wall of the subject land, the petitioners t :spassed into the subject land, they have criminally intimidated the de lt:fo complainant in furtherance of their common intention and abused hirr in the name of the 4 Submissions made b v the learne d Senior t runsel a pean nq for the petitioners: 4.1. There is a delay in lodging the complaint ln act' the petitioner- accused No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor 'f the subject land, having purchased the same by way of two registerecl ;ale deeds bearing document Nos.2456 and 2600 of 1996, datec 20'06 1996 and 26.06.1996 respectively. Thereafter, the petltioner- tccused No'2 has giftedthesubjectlandinfavourofthepetitioner-a()(usedNo.3.When lhedefactocomplainantinterferedwithhisposse;;ion'thepetitioner- accused No.3 has filed two civil suits in O'S'Nos'1311 of 2019 and 255 of 202lseekingperpetualinjunctionagainstlhedefetfocomplainantand temporary injunction was granted in favour o1 the petitioners in ) 3 O.S.No.255 ot 2021 . Thereafter, O.S.No..l36 of 2O1g was withdrawn by the petitioner-accused No.3.

4.2. LW2/R.Punnam Chand, who is the son of the de facto complainant, along with others, has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.gg ot 2021 against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 and others. ln the said suit, they have also filed an l.A. seeking temporary ir,junction. lnitially, temporary injunction was granted in favour of de facto complainant's son. However, when the petitioners herein filed counter, the trial Court, upon considering all the materials available on record, has vacated the temporary injunction granted in favour of de facto complainant,s son.

4.3. According to the complaint, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners as to how they have criminally intimidated the de facto complainant or others. Furthermore, when it is alleged that all the petitioners have abused lhe de facto complainant in one chorus, the offence under SC/ST Act, is not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a \- \ \| 'l --- r."?1 4 fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage Accordil gly' she prayed to dismiss the Petition

6. Having gone through the record, it ls eviderl that there are disputesbetweenthepa(ieswithregardtothesub.(ctlandandthe natureofthesaiddisputesispurelycivilinnature.()tseandcounter casesarefiledandcivilsuitsarealsopendingbetwe.:rtheparties.on the very same set of allegations, two complaints wt:l : lodged by the cle facto complainant. Though the alleged incident lad occurred on 14.03.2019, the present complaint was lodged c I the de facto complainanton26.04.20lgi.e.,thereisadelayinlodrlrgthecomplaint' The reason for such delay remained unexplained' Tit petitioners have filecl a civil suit against the de facto complainant and o ,tained temporary injunction in their favour. ln the civil suit filed by LW-2; nd others against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 and others, t€r was initially granted in favour of de facto complainar ''s son' However' when the petitioners filed counter and the rele t ant documentary evidence, the trial Court' on considering the sarte', has vacated the lporary injunction temporaryinjunctionearliergrantedinfavouroldefrctocomplainant's son, holding that they have suppressed the rr aterial facts and approached the Court with unclean hands in an attempt to obtain favourable orders. when the injunction orders were t lbsisting in favour 5 of the petitioners, the question of petitioners trespassing into the land of de facto complainant does not arise.

7. Though lhe de facto complainant has filed W.p.No.45633 of 201g before this Court and obtained interim order, the petitioners herein are not parties to the said writ petition. On going through the charge sheet, it is stated that the investigation revealed that the de facto complainant is claiming the subject land as ancestral property and got GpA from his family members. According to the revenue records, legal heir certificate was found inconsistent. Whereas, it is stated that the petitioners have been maintaining and protecting their rights and possession over the subject land since '1996. The investigation itself revealed that there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the documents of the de facto complainant, which itself weaken the claim of de facto complainant,s ownership.

8. Section 506 of IPC deals with criminal intimidation, defining the act of threatening someone with injury to their person, reputation, or property to cause fear or alarm. ln the instant case, it is evident that there are no specific or substantive allegations against the petitioners detailing as to how they have criminally intimidated the de facfo complainant or any other person causing criminal intimidation, as such, the offence under Section 506 of IPC is not made out. 6 \. lt is to be noted that there are no eye witnesse ; to the incident, 9. except the family members of the de facto complailranl . lt is stated in the statement of de facto complainant recorded under Sect ln 161 of Cr'P C that on the alleged day of incident, the petitioners h': ein lrave illegally trespassed into the subject land and abused them in tl e name of caste' However, in the statements of LW-2/R-Punnam (l rand and LW-3/ D.Babu, who are the son and son-in-law of the de t lcto complainanf , they have stated that about '100-200 individuals b:longs to Muslim Community formed into an unlaMul assembly and ;t used them in the name of their caste claiming the subject land. Later, t rey came to know the names of the petitioners herein, who have bee r arrayed as the accused. When such a large group is alleged to h: re formed into an unlawful assembly, it remained unexplained as o why only the petitioners have been specifically named and implica ed in the present case. The absence of any independent eye-witnesr; )s, apart from the own family members of de facto complainant, furtir 'r casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made in thr: complaint and the genuineness and credibility of the prosecution versiot r 'lO. For proper adjudication of the matter, Sections (1Xs) and 3(2Xva) of the Act, are extracted hereunder: 3(1)(s) Whoever, not being a member of a Sch-'J led Caste or a Scheduled Tribe abuses any member of a Sc r duled Caste I l 7 or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; 3(2)(va) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tibe commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or propefty, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such propefty belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;

11. ln the instant case, it is alleged that the petitioners, who do not belong to the SC/ST Community, have abused the de facto complainant in the name of caste within public view. However, no independent eye witness was examined to corroborate the alleged incident. The matter can still be public, if the incident was witnessed by the Police or other official witnesses, or if the public generally has knowledge of it, even without eye-witnesses from the public. As seen from the record, it discloses that except the de facto complainant and his family members, there is no eye-witness to the incident or no evidence is produced by the prosecution to show that the public generally has knowledge of it, hence, it cannot be said that the offence was committed in the public view. I

12. Without conceding the allegations, even assuming that the I petitioners have abused the de faclo complainant in the name of caste, the alleged act appears to be totally unprovoked, uncalled for, and committed in the heat of the moment, without any prior criminal intent to humiliate the de facto complainant in the name of the caste. Apart from averment regarding petitioners belonging to non-SC or non-ST, there is i I \t"5 ,.1 .l - no specific averment that the alleged humiliation h:r, occurred within public view, which is also a must and necessary ingre,j ent. Furthermore, it is impossible to believe that all the petitioners, in rne chorus, have uttered the same words at the same time. Hence, 1le offence under SC/ST Act is not rnade out against the petitioners'

13. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the petitiort ts-accused Nos'1 to 4 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial especially v hen there are no specific allegations against them and the proceedingt against them are liable to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this Crirninal Petition is allovr' d, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 t: 4 in Spl S C No l of 2021 on the file of the learned Special sessions . udge for scs/STs Cases-cum-Vlll Additional District Sessions Judge at I' izamabad' Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shzrl stand closed SD/. AI-II IED ABDULLA KHAN ASi: iISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, i. The special Sessrons Judge for SCsisrs cases -cum- Vlll Additional District Sessions Judge at Nizamabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Nizamabad Town-Vl poll: I Station, Nizamabad District.

3. One CC to Sri. V Rohith Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State c. relangana. 5. Two CD Copies [OUT] :E!t!?.8-.f" :,,1L r. . HIGH COURT DATED:3110712025 /- ORDER CRLP.No.1497 o12023 \ o(J :, I iE tq .,) ? i IAi\l ?026 >( \ L Cflvu rr\aL ?ltT-r TEoNI is Ai-k'JF D- @, erl,t&