High Court · 2025

1 The State of Telangna, teP, Py 2. Chintakindi Krishnaiah, S/o Laxmaiah Age . 521ears' Occ Agriculture' R/o' Ringa R-edov District' ."RespondenUDefacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 oI Cr 'P 'C 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 256 of 2022 against petitioner/accusedfortheoffencepunishabTeUrs.3(fXr)(s)ofSC/SIeoA) Act, on the fire of vil Addr. District Judge-cum- sessions court for trail SCiST Cases Ranga Reddy District at L B Nagar' l.A. NO: 10F 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr 'P C prayin'o that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr#"tt".*0. ot Crimnll Fetition, the High Court may all further proceedings including be pteased To pass int"ri.".iJv'i,it.ii-* -",^"r:l aDoearance of petitioner ;' ;;;it;J in sc''sPL No 256 t 2022 on the file of Soeciat vlt Addl. oistrict .tuiil---dJ*- s"."ions court for trial of SC/ST cases' iffi; -Jiffi.tr"t'"i L arf"sai pendins disposal of main petition This petition comir on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum.of Grounds of criminal ,"ln sr n vasa Reddy, Advoc,::'i:, il: r:il:"::::,lrj ;: ["J:,: *::: Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J' SREENIVAS RAO cRIMINAL PETITION No' 6444 ot 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition kras been filed under Section 482 of 1973, bY the Code of Criminal Procedure' the Proceedings in petitioner/ accr.rsed seeking to qr'rash SC.SPL.No.2 56 of 2C)22 on the {ile of the VII Additional District Jr,rdge-cr.rm-sessions Court for the trial of SC/ST Cases' Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar' registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduied Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act' 20 15 (for short' the Act') 2 Brief facts of the case: Respondent No'2/de facto complainant lodged a cornplaint on (,4.t)6-2()2 1 stating that his father' Chintakindi Laxmaiah' purchased the land to an extent of Ac'3 15 gts' in Sy Nos'32' 33 andT3fromthepetitionerthroughaplainpaper(sada bainarna) for total sale consideration of Rs 1'2O'OOO/ - and he paid Lhe said amount by way of installments and he has been in possession of the said land and operating agricr'rltura-l operations. He further stated tLrat he and his father approached the petitioner and requested him to execute the registered sale deed, but he refused to register sale deed and that the petitioner filed O.S.No.345 of 2O2O befote the Junior Civii Judge's Court at 2 Kalwakurthy against hirn and his father. Orr O5.05.2O'21, he along with scrne of his villagers went to the petitioner and asked him to executc registered sale deed by showing sada binama and the petitioncr stated that he did not alienate the lar.d and abr-rsed him in the name of his caste. Basing on th= said complaint, F'.I.R.No.1O3 of 2O2l was registered against the petitioner. Thc Investigating Officer after conducting investigation lilcd charge sheet on O9.O9.2021 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Jrldge-curn-SC l STs Court at Mahabubnagar and the said Court was tralsferred to the Court of VII Additic,nal District Judge-curn-Sessions Court for trial of SC/ ST, Rarrga Reddy District, and renurnbered it as SC.SPL.No 256 of 2022.

3. Hearcl Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, Iearned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel {or the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Mamindla, learned cor.nsel, repres:nting Mr. G. Chzrndra Shekar, learned counseL appearing for respondent I{o.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, le.arned Assistant Public Proseclrtor appearing on behalf of respcndent No. 1- St.rte.

4. Subrnissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. Lcarncd Scnior Counsel submitted that the petitionr:r has not comrnitted the offence and he has not abused respcndent ,7 ,l 3 however, resPondent No.2 in the name of his caste and he was falsely irnplicated by rnaking allegations in the complaint with an intention to harass hirn and also to dissolve civil disputes pending between them' the bomPlaint, the He further submitted that according to alleged incident occurred on O5'O5'2O2 1' No.2 lodged the complaint on O4'O6'2O2L' after lapse month, withor-rt giving any reasons for the said delay' even according to the 4 .2. Hc further subrnitted that and the charge sheet, the allegations rnade in the complaint initiated alY Proceedings father of respondent No'2 had not seeking enforcement of the said sada sale d'eed by approaching the competent civil Court or before revenue authorities' The plrrsuant to the alleged sada sale deed dated 23'06 '1999' nattlreoftheallegationsmadeinthecornplaintandcharge sheet is PurelY civil in nature the Petitioner filed a sr'rit in 4.3. He also submitted that Junior Civil Judge's Court at O.S.No.345 of 2O2O before the Amangal in respect of the very same property and wherein ad granted restraining resPondent inteirn injunction order No.2andhisfatherfrominterferingwiththesuitschedrrle property and the said sr'rit is pending' 4 .4. He further subrnitted that even according to the allegations rnade in the complaint and charge sheet' the alleged / l allegations .f abusing respondent No.2 were within the house of the petitiorrer and respondent No.2 has not spe,:ifica1ly mentioned ir the complaint that there vyas any rnember. of the public at the time ol the incident in the house, except LW.3, who is a close friend of respondent No.2 ald LW.2, whc, is the father of LW. l, he himself stated that he was not present in the scene of off<:nce. Thcrefore, the ingredients that words ,,r,ere offered in any pr:ece within pubric view are not made out a.d the offence under Section 3(l)(r)(s) ot the Act is not attract. Hence, the continuaLion of procecdings is clear abuse of the pror:ess of law.

4.5 In supp,6a1 of h js contention, hc rclied upon the following judgrnen ts 1 2 3 4 5 fnder Mohan Goswarni and another v. Stat() of Uttaranchal and othersr; Konde Nageshwar Rao w. A. Srirarna Chandra. Murty and another (Criminal Appeal No.SSs of 20lal; Hitesh Verrna v. State of Uttarakhand and anothe rz; Rarnesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pr:rdesh and anottrer3 and Sandtrya Dwiwedi v. State of U.p. and another+. 1 2 3 ORDER CRLP.No.6444 of 2023 () k * HE S],7 I 2 s [[i ?025 -2- (i) * :o FAT C\-r{ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITON ?lA t0ltt-