The High Court · 2025

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 stay all further proceedings against the petitioner including his personal appearance in SPL.S.C.NO.222 OF 2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C's/S.T's (POA) ACT,1989 CUM ll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Warangal,pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DASI RAMESH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the M.Vivekananda Reddy Asst Publrc Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and of Sri D.srinivas Rao Advocate for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4541 OF 2o25 ORDER: 't'tris crjrninal pelition is filed by the petitioner-accused sceking thc Ctrtrrl, to qu:,rsh the proceedings against him in SPL'S C'No 222 c'l' 2024 ctn the filc ol' Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/Si's (POA) Act, I98c) r;r:rn-ll Additional Sessions Judge, Warang'll Tirc offenccs allegr:c], rrgainst the pe Litione r are under Section 295(b)' 35 1 (2) oi Flharativu Nl'a1:: Sanhila, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and uncler Seclion 3 (1) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act. 'lhe facrs ol tlle case are that the complainant-2"d respotrdelrt' 2. a nrcml;er o[ il'rt: 'r'crukala communit5r, reported that he purchast'r) 2Ll gunt:-is ol izrnil i'r'om Palvancha Devanna prior to 20O2 Hou't-vcr' his acljlrcent Il;trtlowncr, Shiv:rrathri Swamy-petitioner herein' hri:s been tryir-rg to o(rcupy his land for a long time On 26 09 ''20'24 ' 'er 2:OO pnt, rvhilrl tht complainant was surveying his land with thc MandalTalrsilctarandtheirstaff,ShivarathriSwamycameanr] abusecl him in liltfry language, in the name of his caste keeping thc land drsputes in rnind. It is also alleged that petitioner threatened the complainant to kill him The complainant claimed that the zrccuscd,s 66f121r..io| cziuse<l him I'ear, leading to a delay in reportitrg 2 TB -.:, : .l i thc matter. As such, requested that necessarl, :1r)tion l>c takcn ;rgainst the petitioner according to the law. l3:rsLnpi on thc s:rid colnplaint, case \\,as registered against the petiti,rnc- for the said Lr ll-e nr:cs.

3. Hearcl Sri Dasi Ramesh, learned counsei i pp,'rrring ft;r the pctltioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learnecl As:;istant Pr-rblic Proscculor appearing for thc lst respondc| i'Stille trnrl Sri L.t,Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing lor thr' -1,,1 t:sp<lnrlcnt. .1 . The contention of learned counsel for the pt'riL.ror:r:r is tl'r:it thc pclrcc should not have registered a crime agzlr,sr llre puriti()r'rcr. l)irring the investigation, the Executive Magistrii c i:um Tairsildar, u ir,'; ,,r'as present during thc alleged incident, \r:rt, .\ irninc<l b_1' thc poiici: but dicl not support the prosecution's cas, iir, oillci;ri stali rnr;mber o[ the Tahsildar, examined as LW7, also r]iii ;rot corrobor:rte tirc :rllescd incident. He further contended that the :il,'ged ini:i<lcnt did not occllr as alleged by the 2nd l6sporclt'ni and that the lviLncsscs, LW2 and LW3, have crvil disputes with tlrr: 1lt:Litiorrer. 'ltrc (riher witncsses are allegedly yes-men of LWs.2 irr ll .l 'l-he 1tr:ritioner :iaclrses the 2"d respondent of taking advantage Ui L1r.ir caste to tlle cr,imltlaints against the petitioner and color civil ciiso,.:rr,s as t:nminal ( i1scs to u,r'ct--k vengeance. 3 Lelrrned counsel further contended that there ls no 5. explanation u'h1' the 2nd respondent did not report the alleged incident to thc police on the same day itselt, that the complaint rvas i'iieci as a counlcrblast to thc civil litigation pending between the part.ies. 'lhe pclitioncr filcd records shor'T'ing that a civil suit in O.S.No.226of2A23onthchlcofJuniorCivilJudge'Narsampctis pending between the petitioner and LW2 regarding the subject lan<l- I t is fllrthcr a rqucd that [he investigation officer examined rlil vvitnt:sses on thc s.ame day, and they are interesterl rvitnesscs. 'll.tc investigation officcr failecl to collect documentary evidence to prove the 2'd rcspondent's possession of the alleged land' In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner 6. placccl relianc€r ()!i tllc judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Collrt in 'llre of Uttarakhand and others I Paramjeet Batra Vs State relevant Paras t-t:ad as under :] " 12. While |xcrcising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Cour[ has to be cautious '[his power is to be uscd sparingll' artil onll' Ior the purpose of preventtng abusc oI the process oI attY court or otherwise to secure ends ofjustice Whether a complainr discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature oI facLs allegecl therein Whether cssential ingredients of criminal oflctrcc are prcsent or r]ot ttas to be judged by the High Court. A conrplaint drsclosing civil transactions may also have a t:r-iminal textlire. But the High Court must see whether a disPute r (2O13) I I Suprenri- Cottrt Cases 6173 a':- f t ,*{ : It:.'"| 4 \\,hich rs cssentially of a civil nature is giveo a clo.il, ,tI r.r-irninlrI offence. In such a situation, if a civil remed.y is avei]:il)l( irn(l is, iu fact, adopred as has happened in this case, the lliglr il,Lrrt sliorrlii not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings rc [)r, \'(riL al)rrse ol process of the court 13- {s rvr: have alrcadv notcd, herc lhe disputc is csr;,.rr i.rlli irirlrrrl the profil of the hotel business and its o\i,nership. '1-lrt p, r,drng civrl suit r.r,ill t;rke care ofall those issues. The allegation 1l,iri ti)rg('(1 ar)(1 [abricate(i documents are uscd by the appellant r:;rr r .rlsi, lx: dciilt \vith in rhe said suit. Respondent 2's attempt r., Lile similirr cotrplainl against the appellant having failecl, lrc r,,s [ilr:cl r.lrc prcscnt complaint. The appellanl has been acquiti(i(l irr :urorircr cas( filcd b) llcspondcnt 2 against him allegrrrrl ,rlr,irt. rrnrkr Scclion ,1()6 I['C Possession of tbc shop in qucsti,,, ]-L;,: irlsLr trrr';r hanrtcrl oYer bv the appellant to Respondent 2. In srr<.i,ir srlllatidr, in our opiniou, continuation of the pcndinEl crintittL! rrctccedrrrris rvorrltl bt' abusc of the process of laq,. The High Corrrt r.:t:. \\'r-ollf, rl holcling ot hcrwise." 'i. Lcarnecl counsel for the petitioner lurther coli, j'dcd llrilt tltrtrLl ilic cr\,11 displrtes pending betu,cen the parties ar1(l I.r[:ilrg :1(l\,.rnt:rge ot- iris citstc, the 2nd respondent filed falsc (r:t-i( i.J hrlr:rss rhe IrctiLioitcr- \,itlr bascless allegations.

8. On the othcr hand, the learned Assistan t .-)t r l-rlic Proscr:u lor, and learned ('ounsel for respondent No.2, rcspc.r:tivr:l;, opposed the suti lissions rnadc by learned counsel for pr:titirtlcr'. :ir)d contendccl that there ar(' serious set of allegations against tlti: p:titioner u'hir:h rlo'-rld constitlrte the offences as alleged undcr llt r:tiolt 3 (1) (r) (s) of l@ 5 SCi ST Act, as lhc scene of offence was a public place and the incide n I took place in prcsence of seve ral members, which would rekrte to abusc iu the name ol case, followed by threatening the rcspondct-rt No 12. Therefore , while advocating that tl-rc meLttcr' recl-rircs:rcljuclrcrrrion, the proceedings initiated against the petiLioncr callnot ltc qurashcd at this stage, and prayed this Court to dismiss tl'rc criminal pctition.

9. Having rcsarcl to rival submissions, and material placeci on rcc:orct, it is notccl that the main contention of Icarned counsel for pcr.itioner is , th.rt there are civil disputes pending betu'ee n thc parLies, and a sttit ir-r thc said regard is also fi1ed before compcteul Court, and that the complainan[ has dragged petitioner in criminal c:rse. onlr. to settlr: his civil scores' and proceeded to get a false cast-: ieg,istered a6lairtst thc petitioncr. In support of the said cotrtentiotrs, Lhe learr-red counsel for petitioner also placcd reliancc oIr thc juclgment retrclered by the Hon'blc Supreme Court in thc case o[ Paramjeet Batra (supra), but this Court obscrves that the saitl jr.irlgmcr,.t rcfcrs to offences relating to fabrication of docttments ancl forge ry- rvhich can be decided before the civil Court, and in the casc on irand, the oifcnces as alleged against the petitioner are in relation lo atruse o[ complainant in the name of castc, which lras to llt: adjuclicated before the trial Court.. That being so, it is noted that tht: .-:: ,.: \' '; 6 :,,'l; " sai.l judgment does nol come to the aid of petitrorr,-'r . Tlrcr-clblr', tl-rjs Court is of thc firm vicw that there are no mcrit:; ir llr i:; Llrirriinal Pcrii.ion, and the same is liable to be dismissed- I(1. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismiss,:':l I\'lisccllarreous petitions, pending, if any, sl'riili slait(l ci()s('(l SD/. U.SUDHA '$SSISTANT REGISTRAR lr \ //TRUE COPY// i'r SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.C's/S f's (POA) ACT,1989 CUtU llAdditional District and Sessions Judge at Warangal,

2. The Principal judicial First Class Magistrate at Narsampet 3. The Station House Officer,Police Station, Narsampet, Warangal District 4. One CC to SRl. DASI RAMESH Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUTI 6. Once CC to Sri. D.Srinivas Rao,Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copres W AG/psl I I I I i I I i I I ( HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 ,,\ r a \ o'- /, \.'), \.'r ?B hut 86 i)': '-.i- ORDER CRLP.No.4541 o12025 CRLP IS DISMISSED 1 s $ tD