Court in Mitesh Kumar J.Sha v. State of Karnatakar and the orc

]N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITto NO: 2083 OF 2025 Between: Banda Pulla Reddy, S/o.chandra reddy, Age.97 yrs,Occ. Freedom Fighter, R/o.Garidepally Village and Mandal, suryapet District. ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. 2 Pilla Venkaiah @ Babu, S/o. Gopaiah, Age.72 yrs,occ. retd employee, R/o.Garidepally Village and Mandal, suryapet Distrcit. ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Qourt may be pleased to call for the records pertain to SC.SPL NO. 191 OF 2022 on The file of The Honble Special Sessions Judge For Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases Cum Additional Sessions Judge Court At Nalgonda and quash the same. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 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 the trail and further proceedings in SC SPL NO. 191 OF 2022 on the file of The Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge For Trral Of SC/ST (POA) ACT Cases CUM Additional Sessions Judge Court at Nalgonda including the presence of the Petitioners, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. L Narasimha Rao ,Advocate for the Pelitioner and Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the respondent no.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THT HONOURABLI SRI JUSTICE E.V.\/ ENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.2O83 of 2o.25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is liled by the petitione' seeking to quash tlre frnal report of SC.SPL.No.19L of 2022 on the Ele of the learned Special Judge for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases - cum - Additional Sessions Judge Court at Nalgonda.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that < n 26.08.2022 at 19:00 hours, tlre de facto complainant by narrr, r Pitta Venkaiah, R/o.Garidepally Village and Mandal went to the iaridepally Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complainl stating that the petitioner approached the Court and secured orden; for removal of the statue of Sri Ambedkar in the village. On 24.08.11, ) at O9:30 hours, while the petitioner was ensuring the constructio r s of room at the disputed place, wht:re the statue was removed, on r oticing the same, the respondent No.2 asked the petitioner as to why Le is ensuring the work in the above place. As such, the petitioner got annoyed on him, scolded him in filth1. language, caught the color rf the shirt and pushed him by holding his neck with hands. Mear vhile his villagers namely Kothapajly Ravi, Pitta Pichaiah noticed the se me and rescured him from the petitioner. After that, he gave two dz-' s time to him to 2 settle the matter in presence of village elders. But, the petitioner has not approached the village elders. Accordingty, he lodged a complaint before the Police.

3. Upon receiving the complaint, LW.9 - tJle Sub Inspector of Police at Garidepally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.183 of 2022 uoder Sections 323 and 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act' 2O 15, as the allegations involved atrocities against the SC/ST community. The SDPO, Kodad, was duly informed, in line with the nature of the charges. Subsequently, LW.IO received tJre proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Suryapet and as per the proceedings uide C. No.6 1 / C 1 - Crime / 2022, dated 26. 08. 2022, LW -L t was designated as the Investigating Officer, in compliance with Rule 7(1) in SC / ST (POA) Act Rules, 1995. In due course, the charge sheet was submitted, and LWs. I to 10 were included as witnesses to the case'

4. While the charge sheet remains pending, learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared online and submitted that there are ongoing disputes between the petitioner and the un-oflicial respondent' The petitioner contends that the statue of Dr.B'R.Ambedkar was attempted to be erected on the petitioner's property, which has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. As a result, this Court granted an interim order on 22.12.2C21 directing respondent No.4 to consider 3 and dispose of the pelitioner's representation datetl 1 l.L2.2O2L within a period of three (03) from the date of the order. l- ntil such time, the statlts Eto as of that date was to be maintained.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, l:arned counsel for the un-offrcial respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

6. karned counsel for the petitioner submit I that there are ongoing disputes between the petitioner (accused) i nd the un-oflicial respondent. He further submits that the core issut: revolves around a property dispute, in which the petitioner is resistirrl the erection of a statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. The allegations rr ade against the petitioner are said to be unfounded, relying on evirl, nce presented by so-called independent witnesses, who, in fact, have 1 ersonal interests, thereby casting doubt on the credibility of their testimonies. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apt:: Court in Mitesh Kumar J.Sha v. State of Karnatakar and the orc[, r passed by this Court Crl.P.No.6O72 of 2022, dated 13.01.2025, to I upport the claim that the charges again st the petitioner lack merit. Based on these points, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks :t:dulgence of the Court to allow the criminal petition and grant approl riate relief to the petitioner. 'r.A.ws (sc}2031 10 66 4

7. karned counsel for the un-official respondent vehemently opposed the petitioner's claim, emphas2ing that it is not the petilioner's case that the allegations were made in a private matter. Instead, the case involves events that occurred in a public view. He also emphasized that the respondent is a party in tlle writ petition filed by the petitioner urde W.P.No.35679 of 2O2L, and liling the Writ Petition does not negate the ongoing civil proceedings before the Civil Court. l,earned counsel vehemently opposed the petitioner's counsel argument about the pending civil proceedings asserting that such claims lack merit. Furthermore, he stated that the allegations pertain to a public incident in the village with the presence of independent witnesses. Therefore, the trial court, in its examination of facts, would determine the truth and pass suitable orders. Consequently, he sought the dismissal of the criminal petition.

8. karned Assistant Public Frosecutor submits that after a ttrorough investigation, the charge sheet has been filed, and the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses (LWs. 1 to 10) have been recorded. Since the trial is ongoing and pending adjudication, contends that interference from this Court at this stage is unnecessar5r and prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition.

9. This Court, having heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the un-officia-l respondent and the learned Assistant .i ,, 5 Public Prosecutor, is of the view ttrat the case is 1: esently before the trial court. Hence, this Court has refrained rom making any observations regarding the merits or demerits r' the case. The petitioner is granted liberty to hle a necessar r application for discharge, and the trial court shall examine an<l pass appropriate orders on tJle same, in accordance with law. In cc nsideration of the petitioner's advanced age of 97 years, this Court de, ms it appropriate to dispense with the petitioner's presence, as equested by tlre petitioner's counsel. However, as and when the tI LaI court requires the presence of the petitioner, the petitioner shall rppear before the trial court without fail. Failure to do so will result n the vacation of the interim relief granted by this Court.

10. With the above directions, this Criminal Petiticr is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pendir: 3 in this petition, if ?4y, shall stand closed. SD/. I( BHAVANI SWAMY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER /ffRUE COPY" To,

1. The Special Sessions Judge, For Trial of SC/ST(POA) Ac Cases --cum- AJOitidnal Sessions Judge-Court at Nalgonda, Nalgonda )istrict

2. The Station House Officer' Gavidepalli, Suryapet Districl 3. One CC to Sri G. L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate [oPt C] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sta 3 of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies W L HIGH COURT DATED:3110T12025 \ q o LL \\ 't! t ii .,ll ,' t' ,i ': 1c ..s..' &s \ 't' ORDER ". ,c GRLP.No.2083 of 2025 THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSED OF. lo \'16