The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that I the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Spl S ) No. 70 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for {i )s/STs Cases -cum- VIll Additional District Sessions Judge at Nizamabad whiclr rvas filed against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 4,6,7, 12 and 13 inctuding their rppearance pending disposal of the above Crl.P. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing .he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing :he arguments of Sri V Rohith, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mqs.S.Mac ravi Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 & 2 and nc'le appeared for the Respondent No.3. The Court made the following: ORDER 6 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.l498 of 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.4, 6,7, 12 and 13 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Spl.S.C.No.70 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs Cases-cum-Vlll Additional District Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, for the offences under Sections 324, 447, 427 and 506 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC'), Section 3(1)(gxs) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short the 'Act').

2. Heard Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.V.Rohith, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.,t and 2-State. There is no representation for respondent No.3-de facfo 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.0.28 gts. in Sy.No.202lE situated at Arsapally Village sivar (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'), and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. When the petitioners are interfering with the subjec: land, the de facto complainant has filed a civil suit against them and , ,btained injunction order in his favour. While so, on 29.06.2021, the lccused criminally trespassed into the subject land. On knowing th,-' same, when the de facto complainant and others rushed to the s( 3ne, the accused abused them in filthy language in the name of caste, hreatened them to kill and attacked the de facto complainant and others, causing injuries to them. The accused have also damaged LED TV, CCI V cameras, chairs, lights, fencing and tables.

4. Submissions made bv the learned Senior (l )unsel appearlllq for the petitiqnerci

4.1. There is a delay in lodging the complaint ln act, the brother of petitioner-accused No.6 namely Mohd. Abdul Salee n is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, having pur: rased the same by way of two registered sale deeds bearing document I os.2456 "nd of 1996, dated 20.06.1996 and 26.06.1996 respecttve y. Thereafter, said Mohd. Abdul Saleem has gifted the subject land in f rvour of petitioner- accused No.6. When the de facfo complainant rterfered with his possession, the petitioner-accused No.6 has filetl two civil suits in O.S.Nos.136 of 2019 and 255 of 2021 seeking p :rpetual injunction against lhe de facto complainant and temporary injur.< iion was granted in 3 6r favour of the petitioners in O.S.No.255 of 2021 . Thereafter, O.S.No.136 of 2019 was withdrawn by the petitioner-accused No.6.

4.2. LW-3/R.Punnam Chand, who is the son of the de facto complainant, along with others, has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.98 of 2021 against the petitioners-accused Nos.6 and 7 and others. ln the said suit, they have also filed an l.A. seeking temporary injunction. lnitially, temporary injunction was granted in favour ol de facto complainant's son. However, when the pelitioners 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 on

26.06.2021. As such, the present complaint was filed as a counterblast on 29.06.2021.

4.3. Earlier, the accused in the crime have approached this Court by filing Grl.P.No.7505 of 2021, however, the same was dismissed on

03.04.2023, granting liberty to them to file an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., to be represented by a counsel and the same shall be c-,onsidered by the trial Court, by imposing certain conditions, without hindrance to the trial.

4.4. According to the complaint, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out. Furthermore, when it is alleged that all the 4 petitioners have abused the de facto complainant i t one chorus, the offence under SC/ST Act, is not made out. Hence, i -' 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 he petitioners. lt is further contended that all the allegations levelled in th ) complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, ancl rence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Acc: dingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having gone through the record, it is evitl rnt that there are disputes between the parties with regard to the su rject land and the nature of the said disputes is purely civil in nature. Case and counter cases are filed and civil suits are also pending betvr ren the parties. On the very same set of allegations, two complaints wett : lodged by the de facfo complainant, Though the alleged incidenl had occurred on

29.06.2021, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto compfainant on 09.07.2021 i.e., there is a delay in lcx ging the complaint. The reason for such delay remained unexplained.

7. The petitioners have filed a civil suit agli inst lhe de facto complainant and obtained temporary injunction in the r favour. ln the civil suit filed by LW3 and others against the petitioners-ir ;cused Nos.6 and 7 I I I i I I I i i I i l I I I I i I I i I I I I I i I I I 5 and others, temporary injunction was initially granted in favour oI de facto complainant's son. However, when the petitioners filed counter and the relevant documentary evidence, the trial Court, on considering the same, has vacated the temporary injunction earlier granted in favour of de facto complainant's son, holding that they have suppressed the material facts and approached the Court with unclean hands in an attempt to obtain favourable orders. When the injunction orders were subsisting in favour of the petitioners, the question of petitioners trespassing into the land of de facto complainant does not arise.

8. lt is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have committed mischief by damaging the LED TV, CCry cameras, chairs, lights, fencing and tables. On going through the charge sheet, it is stated that nothing was seized by the Police as no incriminating material was found. The Police failed to seize even a single article which was alleged to have been damaged by the petitioners in the alleged act of mischief.

9. 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 facto complainant or any other person causing criminal intimidation, as such, the offence under Section 506 of IPC is not made out. The Doctor, who examined the 6 injured, issued medical certificates opining that the ir iuries suffered by the victims are simple in nature. Even the sticks usec by the petitioners in the commission of offence were not seized by the )olice. Hence, the offence under Section 324 ol IPC is not made out.

10. lt is to be noted that there are no eye witness :s to the incident, except the family members and friends of the de faclc complainant, who are the interested witnesses. All the witnesses have tt trrated the alleged incident in a uniform manner and the absence of any independent eye- witnesses, apart from the own family members of cir' 'acto complainant, further casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the a legations made in the complaint and the genuineness and credibility rf the prosecution verston.

11. For proper adjudication of the matter, Sectior; 3(1)(g)(s) of the Act, is extracted hereunder '3(1) Vvhoever, not being a member of a Schcdurc I Caste or a Scheduled Tribe- (g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Sc/rr;rt 'ed Caste or a Scheduled Trihe from his land or premises or r ederes with the enjoyment of his rights, including forest rights, t any land or premises or water or irrigation facilities or desli( '/s the crops or takes away the produce theretrom. 'rer (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste o, t Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public vie t, " I 7 a 12. 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 and also tried to dispossess the de facto complainant from the subject land. With regard to the ownership of the subject land, it is discussed above. With regard to abusing in the name of caste within public view, there is no independent eye witness 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 lhe de facto complainant, his friends and 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.

13. Without conceding the allegations, even assuming that the petitioners have abused the de facto complainant in the name of caste, I the alleged act appears to be totally unprovoked, uncalled for, and commltted 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 no specific averment that the alleged humiliation had occurred within public view, which is also a must and necessary ingredient. Furthermore, 8 it is impossible to believe that all the petitioners, in rne chorus, have r\ uttered the same words at the same time. Hence, r re offence under SC/ST Act is not made out against the petitioners.

14. ln view of the foregoing discussion, the petitionerr ;-accused Nos.4, 6, 7 , 12 and 13 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial esp,r cially when there are no specific allegations against them and the pr: ;eedings against l I them are liable to be quashed.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowe,r , quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 12 and 13 in Spl.S.C.No.70 ol 2021 on the file of the tearned Specir Sessions Judge for SCs/STs Cases-cum-Vlll Additional District Se :sions Judge at Nizamabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall s and closed. SD/.AHMEI ABDULLAKHAN ASSI:i ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S =CTION OFFICER To,

1. The special sessions Judge for scs/srs cases -cum- Vil Additional District Sessions Judge at Nizama6ad.

2. The station House officer, Town-vr, Nizamabad porice str ion, Nizamabad. 3. One CC to Sri. V Rohith Advocate tOpUCl 4 Two ccs to Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of I :rangana. [oUT] 5. Two CD Copies YJR /PSL Y^-' I l HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712425 I I / I ORDER CRLP.No.1498 of 2023 !, 1' 22 ti:, 2sp * Oc ..,/ - I _i' CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. % {t,)9