The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners inSC No 229 of 2O2O on the file of Special Sessions Judge for SC and STs pOA Act 1989 Cum lllAddl.District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.g.C praying that in the circu:instances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the petitioners including appearance in SC No. 229 of 202O on the file of Special Sessions Judge for SC & STs POA Act,1989 Cum lll Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri VIMAL VARMA vASl REDDY ,Advocate for the petitioner and Mr E:.(3anesh Asst public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.l. and of Sri B. KARTHIK NARAYANA Advocate for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER I r'r THE HONOURABLI SRI T'USTICE D.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.3799 OF 2O2L ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is Iiled seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.229 of 2O2O on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

3. On O4.O4.2O19, the de-facto complainart lodged a report against the petitioners. Both were college classmates. The complainant Ieft for Australia in 2OO3 to pursue higher education and returned to Hyderabad tn 2006, started his own architectural and interior desigrr business in 2OO7. The marriage of the l"t petitioner was performed with her brother-in-law and she blessed with a daughter. Thereafter, disputes arose between them and they lived separately and she got divorce in the year 2009-10.

4. The l"t petitioner and de-facto complainant married on lgrh Januar5r 2014 which is an inter-caste marriage i.e., complainant belongs to MaIa Scheduled Caste, l st petitioner to Kapu Z community. After the said marriage, they livel in Hyderabad, and they have purchased a car jointly. However', the petitioner's family humiliated the complainalt over his czLste, calling him derogatory narnes ald burning his clothes at the ir home.

5. Due to these tensions, marital \fe of de-fLtt:to complainant was disturbed. The petitioner complainr:ct about the complainant's parents and forced him to mov€ out. They lived separately in a rented tuxury apartment, btLt conllicts over lifestyle expenses and the petitioners' demands .br a more lavish life caused frequent arguments. In Febru ary 2Ol7 , the complainant moved to Mumbai for work but later convinced the petitioner to reunite. The petitioner then lived rrostly alone in a luxury apartment in Hyderabad, with occasionzLl rrisits from the complainant, who continued financial support.

6. In July 20 18, after celebrating the petitLoner's birthday, she suddenly demanded divorce, accompanied by caste-based insults ancl threats, including statements to ruin the complainant ald his family. She threatened to file false cases and humiliatecl him by smoking at home, which was unusual behavior. From July 17, 2018, she sent WhatsApp messages insisting on divorce, ciling "cultural differences" mostly related to caste issues. 3 iV

7. The complainant agreed to mutual divorce but asked for return of money and joint assets. The petitioner initially agreed but later refused and imposed conditions, refusing to appoint a lawyer or family member to facilitate the divorce. She verbally abused the complainant, demanded to leave the house, and threatened him with eviction and further harassment. 8, Based on this complaint, a case was registered under Section 504 IPC and the SC/ST (pOA) Amendment Act, 2015. The police investigated, recorded statements and veri$ing caste certificates. The petitioner challenged police action in Telangana High Court, which restrained coercive measures against her. Notices under Section 4l (A) Cr.p.C were served, and investigation is going on.

9. While the matter stood thus and was under consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Hltesh Verma as. State of Uttaro,kho,nd and Anothert. He further submits that the offence under Sections 3(t)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (pOA) Amendment Act, 2O15 is not attracted in tl..e present case, as all the allegations made against the petitioner relate to matrimonial disputes, which culminated in a mutually agreed divorce. The ' 1zozo; ro scc zto 4 said divorce was granted in F.C.O.P. No.346 of 2OI9 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District rrt L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(itr) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The divorce decree was passed mu<:h prior to the \ filing of the present comPlaint.

10. It is submitted that the alleged offence date:s back to 2018, whereas the email containing specific allegatro ns against the petitioner was sent almost 10 months later. The ctelay in making such allegations casts doubt on their veracit'". Moreover, the incident, as described, did not occur in public view but within the confines of the domestic setting, and tht:refore does not attract the provisions of Sections 3( 1)(r) an,1 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015' Henct:, the petitioner prays that this Court may be pleased to ai low the present petition. I I . The learned counsel for unofficial r,rs;pondent No.2 vehemenfly submitted that the investigation has been thoroughly completed. He contended that the de-facto complainant has consistently maintained that action against t,he petitioners (accused Nos. 1 and 2l can only be determined through a full- fledged trial. He further submitted that whetlrt:r the incident 5 occurred within the four walls of a private residence or in public view is a matter of evidence, which can only be decided during the course of trial. He lastly stated that he respectfully dilfers from t}le interpretation Iaid down in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, as the facts of the present case do not align with the spirit of that decision and he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sud.hakar os. S:tatd observed f}rat .The plead of "interested Witness", "related uitness" ha.s been succirrctlg explained bg this Court thnt "related" is not eqiualent to "tnterested". The uitness may be called "interested" onlg ulen he or sh.e deiues some benejlt from the result of.a litigation in the decree in a ciuil case, or in seeing an acatsed person punisled". He therefore prays for dismissal of this petition. L2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that as many as I O witnesses are yet to be examined before the tria-l Court. He contended t}rat unless the trial is conducted, the truth cannot be elicited, especially considering the differing versions of events from the witnesses. Hence, he submitted that the trial must proceed to its logical conclusion in accordance with law ald accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present petition- 'z1zore1 s scc +ls 6

13. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respond,:nt No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and upo n examination of the merits of the case, it appears that certain allegations have been made against tJre petitioners.

14. However, the nature of those allegations rloes not clearly demonstrate any specffic instance wherein th e petitioners are shown to have abused or humiliated the de-fac\o complainant in the name of his caste, along with the place, time and manner of such occurrence. There is no material to indicate that the alleged incident occurred in a public place or ln prrtrlic view, as is required to attract the provisions of Sections 3( )(r) and 3(l)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 2015.

15. The central issue before this Court ir; whether the allegations made fall within the parameters l:rid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verrna a. State of Uttarakltand and Another (Supra-l), wherein it was held that for the offence under the said Act to be attracteC, the insult or intimidation must occur in public view. Simjlzr observations were made by the Apex Court in Sud.hakor a. Sta'te (Supra-2), wherein it was reiterated that the occurrence must be public and aimetrffhumiliating the complainant on the basir; of caste. A ( I i L 7 16, In light of the above, tJle present case seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of ttre Code of Criminal Procedure, I 973.

17. The issue before this Court is to determine whether the allegations made against the petitioners attract the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (pOA) Act, particularly with regard to the requirement that the alteged insr:lt or intimidation must have occurred in public view.

18. Upon a perusal of the record and considering tJre submissions of both parties, this Court finds that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose that the incident took place in a public place or was witnessed by any independent persons, as required under the law. The alleged acts were part of domestic discord between the parties and appear to have occurred within the conlines of a private residence.

19. Accordingly, this Court, while placing reliance on the judgments of the Honble Apex Court in Hitesh Venna u. State of Utlarakhand and Sudlw.kar u. State, hnds it appropriate to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the continuation of proceedings before the learned Trial Court, in respect of the t ( 8 alleged offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, would amount to an abuse of proc()sis of law. The allegations do not meet the statutory requiremen - 'cf having been committed in public view, and therefore, no prirna facie case is made out under the said provisions.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court holds that tJre allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (PcA) Act, as the alleged acts were not committed in public view Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceeding s against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the proc:t;s of law. 21 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is all rrved, and the proceedings in S.C.No.229 of 2O2O on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sha I stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABOULLA KHAN ISTANT REGISTRAR ^\': //TRUE COPY// ,)' I}ECTION OFFICER t The Special Sessions Judge for SC and STs pOlr,Act, 19g9 Cum lll Addl District and Sessioni Judge, Ranga neAOy Oistrici - - - - To, i 1 I l /

2. The Vll Additional District Judge cum SC/ST Special Court at LB Nagar ,Cyberabad

3. The Station House Officer,Police Station Chandanagar, Cyberabad 4. One CC to SRl. VIMAL VARMA VASI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. B. KARTHIK NARAYANA for R2 Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Advocate [OPUC] {. Two CD CoPies AG/ghw , t o o ( t T tE S. T4 Ict 2!l nou 6 lF'Arcu€-O * I I I i , ! I ! I i I t i I I ! I I I I HIGH COURT \ DATED:2310612025 ORDER CRLP.No.3799 ot 2O21 CRLP IS ALLOWED \o .dd .$"