The High Court · 2025

Beoari Amrutha. Wo. Ramulu, Aged about 35. Ytllt: Occ Agriculture' R/o' il:;; ...RE;Pbl'iDdNT No'i /DEFAcro coMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS' 2023 praying tl'l" in the circumstances stated in trr".'''rrrr"moranoum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pr"a.ei"to'6unsH't," pro"."dinos ii s.c.No.162 of 2025 on the fite of special Lrog" f:r"siidiipiiAl n"t / Add'i. sessions Judse court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga ReddY District; tA!+*ffi'?:::er section 482 or cr'P'c pra.vlrs that in the. t"'T111""t oicri*in"i pJtition,the High court mav be stated in the Memorandr;;i i;;. oleased to sTAy ot att turtier-pio"u"aing. in s c.No.162 of 2025 on the file of ffi#l jra"g;'i".. s;siii;o,ni n", eair. sessions Judge court at L.B.Nagar' Ranga ReddY District ; This Petition coming on for hearing'upon perusing the Memoran9lT of Grounds of criminal petiti-on and upon hearing the arguments of Sri .RAPOLU BHASKAR,AdvocateforthePetitionersandSriMVivekanandaReddy'Asst FLOii" p."""utor on behalf of the Respondent No' 1 and none appear for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER I ) THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.SB76 OF 2O2S ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against them in S.C.No. 162 of 2O2S on the file of the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act cum Additional Sessions Judge Court at LB.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324,5O6 of IpC, 75 of JJ Act, 3(2)(v)(a), 3(l)(r)(s) of sc/ST (poA) Acr.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that a 14 year old boy, Begari yadagiri, allegedly trespassed onto police Madhusudhan Reddy's property in Kesaram Village, Shabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to pluck a pomegranate, and when he was caught, he reportedly beat the boy and tied him with a rope. The boy's friends, who were with him, ran away when they saw one Reddy approaching. The de facto complainant who is boy,s mother, Begari Amrutha, was informed about the incident by a villager named premalatha and immediately went to the spot to fetch her son. When she i ) *+ 2 arrived, she claims that Reddy cursed her' and Reddy's son who is petitioner No'2' scolded her' Two days later' Amrutha Itled a complaint before the Shabad Police Station' leading to the registration of a case against the petitioners for the offences as alleged' Aggrieved thereby' this criminal petition k is trled.

3. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar' learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri M'Vivekanada Reddy' learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent No.1- state. None appeared for resPondent No'2' l="'- Learrrcd counsel for petitioners submitted that the 4 . petitioners never committed any offense as alleged by the de facto complainant and that the complaint is false and not maintainable in law' He conteffi'that the complainant's son trespassed into their hou"t# stole money and fruits' and even when he was caught' the petitioners did not file a complaint out of maturity' considering the boy's young age' The petitioners argue that the complaint was hled with false allegations to harass them' He iamented that the complaint is barred by deiay, as it was hled three days after the incident' )-.--'" 3 and that apart, the Sections inr.oked, including Sections 342, 324 rPC, and the sc/sr Act, are not appricable in this case, as there is no evidence to support the ailegations. He averred that the petitioners did nq1 detain or abuse the complainant,s son on the basis of caste due to which the SC/ST Act is not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the Criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand the learned Assistant public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions made by iearned counsel for petitioner ancl contended that basing on the averments made in the complaint, whereunder, serious allegations are leveled against the petitioners, the proceedings were initiated, implicating them as accused for the offences as alleged. While advocating thaL the matter requires full fledged trial, he prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminai Petition

6. Having regard to rival submissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the petitioners are father_son duo against whom allegations are 4 leveledthattheytiedthesonofcomplainant/LW.2witha rope and beat him' By seeing the same' the LWs'4 to 6 attempted to release LW 2 but petitioner No' 1 did not accept the same, and thereafter' LW'l went to the scene of offence and requested the petitioner No' 1 to reiease LW '2 aod on that the petitioner No'2 released LW 2 but abused them in hlthy language and threatened them' That being so' it cannot be said that there are no allegations against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section s 342' 324' 506 of IPC' 75 of JJ Act. medical certificate/injury certihcate 7. That aPart, the by the learned Additional Public d,ated' 26.06'2024 filed Prosecutor would show that the injuries are simpie in nature ' Therefore, that part of the offences have to be adjudicated by the trial Court' However' it is noticed that in the complaint averments there is no mention that the petitioners were aware of the caste of victim' as such' this Court is of the considered view thatithe offences punishable under Sections 3(2Xv)(a), 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act' are not applicable to the petitloners. 5

8. That being so, in the result, this Criminal petition is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in S.C.No. 162 of 2025 to the extent of offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(v)(a), 3(t)(r)(s) of SC/ST (pOA) Act, while permitting the prosecution to proceed further against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324,506 of IpC, 75 of JJ Act, in accordance with law Misceilaneous petitions, pending, it any, shall stand closed \ To, 1 //TRUE COPYII sD/- ASS -- -'v ' '\'Fr.- lE;?iYAt3,!1,ffiF o 1..- 'i SECTION OFFICER I 2 J 4. 5. VSM/ $**:$ffiikti'm#*fl#filH#' w HIGH COURT DATED:14 tOBtzO2S T4 e (.r ?. o 25AUEzffi \ ,..i "v O5 q -/, -,- !.. ORDER CRLP.No.5376 of ZO2S PARTLY ALLOWING TIIE CRTMINAL PETITION M a