✦ High Court of India · 29 Jul 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 29 Jul 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
29 Jul 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,093 words

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana State, Hyderabad. Kurumidde Gopal, S/o Rangaiah, Aged about 50 years, Caste. SC (Mala), Occ. Supervisor, R/o Kothulapuram Village, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongiri District. ...RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO-COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings in SC. SPL No.1 ot 2022 on the file of the Honourable Special Sessions Court (For Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases) at Nalgonda

1.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the H(7h Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further Proceedings in SC. SPL No.1. of 2022 on the file of the Honorable Special Sessions Court (For Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases) at Nalgonda including appearance of the 2nd petitioner/accused, pending disposal of the main petition, l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that irr the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition I le High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified copy I the SC. SPL No.1 of 2O22 on the file of the Honourable Special Sessions )ourt (For Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases at Nalgonda This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing I e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argum': rts of Sri RAPOLU BHASKAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr M.Vievkanan I rReddy Asst Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and n<'t e appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER .,, \ THE HOITOURA3LE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJAITA c PETITI ON No.43O I oF 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner_A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in SC.SpL.No. 1 of 2t/22 on t,rre Itle of Special Sessions Court (for Trial of SCs/STs (pOA) Act Cases at Nalgonda. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 447, 422, so4 r/w.34 of Indian penar code (for short lPCl and under Section 3 (l)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Acr. 20t5 (for short SC/ST Act). i

2. The facts of the case are that the defacto complainant_2nd respondent lodged a report on O2_lO.2O2l stating that he is working as Supervisor under one Munagala Mahipal Reddy who is having Ac.1O.1O guntas of land in Sy_Nos.S3, 54 and 55 of Kothulapuram Revenue Viltage. on 0l. ro.2o2r at about 06.30 hours he collected milk at Gudimalkapuram Viltage and reached the outskirts of Kothulapuram Vi age, he saw the villagers i.e., A.l to A.4 ploughing the agricultural Iand of his master Mahipal Reddy with a tractor. When he went there afld questioned them, the said persons abused the complainant in t-rlthy tanguage and insulted in 2- [he narne of his caste as "Mala Vada" and also cz maged the boundary stones. As such, requested tlle police to ta ( necessary action against the accused. Basing on the said coml) 1int, police registered a case against the accused for the said offenc :s and filed charge sheet.

3. Heard Sri B.Venkat Rama Naidu, learne I counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar learned counse on record appearing lor the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekaaanda Rr r dy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the l"t resp('r clent-State None appeared on behalf of the 2"d respondent even tl >ugh no[ice is served. 4 The contention of learned counsel for the petili rner is that pelitioner herein is accused No.2 and he is the own e r of property r,t'h ich u,as acquired from his father. It is further co r ended that the 2"d respondent lodged a complaint stating tll tilisan agricultural land whereas, the investigating officer h:s :itatcd that it is a vcnture and there is no document hlerl rt- the 2nd rcspondent and the investigating ollicer has not r:< llccted an1' document lo prove that the 2nd respondent's master ts he og,ner of 3 the subject property. Lw.2 statement shows that petitioner herein ploughed the land of 2"d respondent nearby Gold Mine venture, that itself shows that there is no truth in the complaint. As such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that aJter thorough investigation, the investigating offrcer f ed charge sheet. As such, it requires adjudication and prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering ttre submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the a-llegation against the petitioner is that he along with others entered into the property of 2"d respondent's master and ploughed the land and when the 2nd respondent questioned about tJ:e same, petitioner abused him in hlthy lalguage in the name of his caste. There is no eye witness to prove the same arrd no evidence is collected by the inve stigating officer. The document frled by the petitioner sho"\'s that petitioner is having ownership over the land and if at all there is interference by the petitioner herein, the owner of property has to file civil suit. Hence, there is no material to continue, as such, continuation of I 4 proceedings against the petitioner is notlling but abrr re of process of lau. and the same are liable to be quashed. 7 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allor r, d and the proceedings against the petitoner-A.2 in SC.SPL.No I of 2022 on the hle of Special Sessions Court (for Trial of SCs/t)''s (pOA) Acr Cases at Nalgonda are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, sh€l also stand closed. To, ] /ITRUE COPY'/ SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL =PUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER 1 rhe Special Sessions Court (For Trial of SCs/STs POA) Act Cases) at Nalgonda

2. The Station House Officer,Police Station Narayanpur,Fli chakonda District 3 One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CC to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [O 5. Two CD Copies r JC] AG/gh ,+L HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 ORDER CRLP.No.4301 of 2025 CRLP IS ALLOWED 1 r0 / i\\': 5 Lai 7025

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments