The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of 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 proccedings in c.c.N0.142 of 2019 on the file of spl. sessions Judge for trial of cases under sc/sT (PoA) Act-cum-vll Addl. District and sessions Judge, R.R.Oistrict at L.B.Nagar relating to Crime No.196 of 2019 of P.S.Raidurgam. Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstanc€s stated in the Memofandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all rurttter proceeoings including the appearance of the petitioner/accused in c.c. No. 142 of 2019 o; the file oine Spt. SLssionj judge for trail of cases under SCIST (POA) Act-cum-Vll AOOi Oi"tri"t and Sessions Judge, R.R. bistrict at L.B. Nagar, relating to Crirne No. 196 of 2019 of P.S. Raidurgam during the pendency of the criminal petition. Eetween: Brio A Umar Farook VSM (Retd.), Aged 59 years, Occ. Director, Engineering Staff-College of lnd"ia (ESCI, AutonomouL Organ of the lnstitution of Engineers (lndia), Gacnroowr' Hydera'bad, Telangana - 500 032. ...PETITIONER.IACCUSED AND

1. The State SHO, Raidurgam P.S, Madhapur Division, Cyberabad, R.R.District, Rep. by its Public Proseqrtor, High Court of Hyderabad.

2. R.Suresh Naik, S/o. Hari Lai, Aged 36 years, Occ. Mg. Director, M/s. ISTTM lndia E\(. Ltd, R/o. A Gate-1011, My Home Jewel, Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, R. R. Dis&ict. ...RESPONDENTS'DE FACTO COMPLAINANT Petitiorr under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memoihntl0nt of Groundb of Ciiminal Petition, the l1i0h Corirt maV be-plea5ed to Vacate the interim orden; passed in lA.No. 2 in Crl.P.No. 5390 of 2019. l.A. NO: 3 OF:2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandunr of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be p[ea.sed to receive The orders of the, Hon'ble High Court l.W.P. No. 9414 of 2A20, dt 30-06-2020.2.The orders in Writ Appeal no. 348 of 2O2O, dated: 19-07-2021 and 3.The orders in Arbitration application no. 39 of 2019, dated 19-11-2021 along with terms of settlement for deciding the Crl.P. No 5390 of2019. This F'etition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B CHINNAPA REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalt of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri N;rrapuraju Avaneesh, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE E.V.VENUGOPAL 1 ORDER: The present criminal petition is filed under section 482 of cr.p.c., by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in cc No. 142 of 2}lg on the file of the learned Special sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, arising out of FIR No.196 of 2O19 of PS, Raidurgam, registered. for the offences under Sections So4, 506 of IpC read with section 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (PoA) Act' 1989, as amended through Act, 2O15'

2.HeardSriB.ChinnapaReddy,learned.counselforthe petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri NarapurajuAvaneesh,learnedcounselfortherespondentNo.2.

3.Thebrieffactsofthecasearethaton|7,04.2019at13.00 hours, the 2.d respondent/ de-facto complainant, lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused alleging that the 2'd respondent being Managing Director of tsTTM India Private Limited started PGDM Programme along with other staff members in collaboration with ESCI (Engineering staff college of India), Gachibowli and when the 2n,d respondent went to meet the petitioner, who was the Director of Escl' to resolve the issue of non-payment of salaries to the staff' the Page 2 ofll petitionr:r abused him in a most disrespectful mErnner stating him as 'defaulte'r'and when the 2"d respondent tried to convince the petitioner stating that the issue of non-payment of salaries to the staff will seriousllr affect the education of the students, the petitioner repeatedly abused 'rim and denied to take back his words and further abused the 2"d respondent in the name of his caste in the presence of several people- Accordingl.y, the police of Raidurgam registered crime in FIR No'196 of 2olg on rz.o4.2otg and proceeded further with the investiga-tion and upon compretion of investigation, laid charge-sheet and the trial court took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and numbered the case as SC No.142 of 2Ol9 - 4' Questioning his array as accused in the above referred case, tfLe petitioner fired the present criminal petition mainly contendi.ng that the 2"rr respondent with unbelievable and untenable allegatio's got the petitioner impricated in the present case only with a view to tLarass him- The petitioner is a retired Brigadier Rank officer with vis;hist Seva Medar from the president of India for his distinguir;hed services in indian Army and worked in Nuclear Division and Strategic Electronic Division of ECIL, Hyderabad. The petitioner requestec[ the 2"a respondent to act as per Memorandum of Agreement signed be:tween Escr *nd ISTTM and to deposit the colrecr.ed fee from the students of ESCI but the 2'd respondent did not heed to the same. \ \ Page3ofll Upon sending various remln( lers' a meeting O3.O4.2OlgwithtopmanagementofESCI'Deanofstudies'Chief Admin and chief Finance officer, the petitioner and the 2'd respondent wherein the petitioner, being tl.e Director of EscI' informed that the institutionwitlpayt}resalarytothesupportstaffifthedueswere cleared by ISTTM. Thereafter, the 2'd respondent lodged a complaint with the same Raidurgam Police on o5'04 '2}lg wherein the police have recorded the statements of the petitioner and top officials of EscI' The petitionersubmittedDVDofmeetingsdatedo3.o3.2olgtothepolice statingthatthesaidfactitselfshowstheintentionofthe2nd respondent in harassing the petitioner to restrain him from initiating legal action for recovery of money' However' by suppressing the earlier complaint dated o5.o4.2o19, the present case has been registered and the police without making any enquiry, have erroneously registered the samehavingbeeninfluencedbythe2'drespondentandlaidcharge- sheet Placing reliance on the Partisan witnesses, who acted hand-in- glove with the 2nd respondent. The recitals of the charge-sheet do not disclose any incriminating material against ttre petitioner in commission of the al,leged offence, the petitioner had no need or necessity for abusing the 2'd respondent' The 2od respondent filed Arbitration Application No.3 9 of 2ot9 before tl.is High court' The 2'd respondentalsofitedoPNo.2of2o|gonthefrleofthelearned)C/ Additional Judge-cum-XV MSJ-cum-Additional Family Court' Bg"gS Page4ofIl Reddy District, Kukatpally. The 2od respondent is trying to glve criminar colour to a civil litigation- The 2nd respondent is a complaint monger.

5. karned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no ingrr:dients to attract the offences under Sections SO4, 506 of IpC read with section 3(r)(s) of sc & sr (poA) Act, 1989, as amended through Act, 2OlS against the petitioner and he is rcpeci in the array of accused on the pressure and influence exerted by the 2nd respondent. He furlher submits that basing on the first complaint dated 05'04'2019' the investigation was entrusted to Mr.saidulu, SI of police for enquiry and necessary acdon. Thereafter another complaint dated l6.O4.20t1g was lodged with the same police by the 2nd respondent with an impn:vement citing the incident of the same date but adding two other wihesses. Basing on the second compraint crime in FIR No.196 of 2O19 for the offences under Sections 5O4, 506 of IpC read with Section {l(l)(s} of SC & ST (pOA) Act, 1989, as amended through Act, 2O15, weLs registered by the Inspector of police, Raidurgam. learned . counsel ror the petitioner further submitted that there are financial transactir:ns between the institutions being represented by the petitioner and the 2.d respondent and that the 2nd respondent, by shorving his authorit5r, tried to stall the payments and hence, the. . petitioner requested him to crear off the dues and that the petitioner . Page 5 of 1l ' abusing the 2d respondent in the name of his caste is a false allegation '''rri'-'Jia"1' t'{#t'ttp'J':H#fsifs!'- madewithaviewtoimplicatethepetitionerinthepresentcase.

6.tnsupportofhiscontentions,thelearnedcounselforthe petitionerrelieduponthedecisionsrenderedinHiteshVermaVs. StateofUttarakhanandanotherl,P.AnandRaoandothersVs. StateofAP2andRameshChandraVaishyaVs.StateofUttar pradesh and anothers and. contended that even though the appellant might have abused the complainant but such abuse by itself and withoutanythingmoredoesnotwarrantsubjectingt}reappellantto faceatrial,particularlyintheclearabsenceoft}reingredientof intentionalinsultofsuchadegreethatitcouldprovokeapersonto breakpublicpeaceorcommitanyotheroffenceandthatinsultingor intimidating a person belonging to Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST)communitycouldnotbeconsideredasanoffenceunderthe Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim bel0nging to SC/ST. The learned counsel further contends that a "place within publicview.,shoutdnotbeconfusedwitha''publicplace,''meaningan incid.entinaprivateofhcecouldstillfallwithinthescopeof"public view!, under Section 3(1)(x) of the sc/sT Act, depending on the circumstances, but in this specific instance, the offense was not qrade t (zozo) l0 SuPreme Court Cases 710 ')otl scc onLine AP 194 'zoz3 scc onLine sc 668 Page6ofll out because the alreged incident occurred in a private orlice and was not conrsidered to be within public view. 7 ' Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of 1he suppression of earlier complaint and the ulterior motives on the part of the 2'd respondent to implicate the petitioner in the present case and his efforts to exert pressure on him and to harass him, tree continuertion of the crimina! proceedings and subjecting the petitioner to the tn.bulations of trial is nothing but abuse of process of law. 8' Per contra, leai'ned cuunser for the respondent No.2 strenuo,sly contended that consequent to the incident, the complairtant lodged a complaint on o5.o4 .2org with the police and since thr: porice failed to file the charge-sheet u,ithin the stipurated time' h': approached National sT cominission by rnaking a represenla.tion on 24.o4.20Lg and the commissioner in turn ha.d forwarderl the said compraint to the police. The crime Investigation Departmt:nt issued proceedings vide c.N o.3T / Cg /pRC/Ts/ CjrD /2org, dated 25o7.zor9 and upon recording the statements of eyewitnesses the policr: laid charge-sheet vide Sc No. r42 of 2oLg. pursua.nt to the cID enquiry report, the sc sr commission has convened a rneeting on 26'07 '2019 calling the respondent No.2 and concerned poticc officiars and after;erifting afl the rerevant information, it has opined that the petitioner./accused has ridicured and humiliated the respondent No.2 \,r Page 7 of ll jii;:p:i:.'\'ikyi%'.eahing his caste. The respondent/pblice have ..'tCd-6iiii';;ffi*ffi; action initiated by the ST Commission and the complaint of the 2nd respondent was kept in cold storage till then' r'"-: g.Itisfurthercontend.edbylearnedcounselforthe respondent No.2 that the statements of independent uritnesses viz' LWs.2,3,andloto13revealedcommissionofoffencebythe petitioner/accused. Their revelations need full-fledged trial to come to the conclusion regarding the complicity or otherwise of the petitioner and before such exercise, he cannot be declared as innocent at the threshold. [rarned counset for the respondent No.2 relied upon tJre decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in union of India vs' state of Maharashtraa contending that to safeguard the marginalised communities from the abuses and mistreatment, the protective nature of the Act was essential. Relying on the principles laid down in the case between swaran singh vs. states he further contends that in the matterofabuseofsCandSCcastepersonsthereisastrong affirmation of need for equal protection of law' especially for marginalized communities, and reiterates the judiciary's duty to ensure that power, caste, or political influence does not shield an accused from prosecution.AtrocitycaSesinvo1venoton1yanemotionalreactionto o AIR z0t9 SuPreme Court 4917 t enzooeqcrezr 41 Page 8 ofll visible suffering, but a-deeper soeietar shift toward justice, equrty, .Ernd - accountability. It reflects a growing intolerance of caste-based violence and an insistence that the state fulfil its constitutional promise of dignity etnd protection for all citizens. He further contends that even if the remark is made inside a building, but wourd be an offence since it is in the public view. He further contends that one must not confuse the expression 'place within public view, with the expression public place- lt place can be a private place but yet within the public vierv. on the cther hand, a pubric place would ordinarily mean a prace which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipaliry or other local body or gaon sabha or a.n instrumentality of the State and not b5,, private p'ersons or private bodies. He further submits that the offence occurred in the office of the petitioner but not in a private placc and that theie were several witnesses present and witnessed the incident. under these circumstances trre trial court may be permitted to proceed with trial to decide the matter basing upon the evidence and material placed on record-

10. learned Assistant public prosecutor, in conformity with the submissicns made by Iearned counsel for the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the present criminal petition and stated that in view of the material ':ollected during investigation ancl the crucial witnesses to thb Page 9 of 1l incident, the matter requires full-fledged trial and without conducting trial the true facts cannot be elicited'

11. Having heard respective learned counsel and upon perusal of the material placed on record this court is seized of the fact that initial complaint was lodged on 05.04.2019 at 20'oo hours and thereafter another complaint was lodged on 16'04'2019 i'e' after 11 d.ays with subsequent developments. In both the complaints the date of incident was mentioned as o3.o4.2019 which means after two days from the date of incident the complaint was lodged with the Police of Raidurgam.Thecomplaintdated:16,04.20lgwasregisteredbythe police on l7.o4.2olg i.e. after one day. There is a delay in reporting the incident. Basing on the above it can be safely inferred that a gap of L 1 days occurred between both the complaints regarding the same incident. In the second complaint the 2'd respondent mentioned about his meeting their past academic advisor Mr'Rajendran C and staff rnemberMr.SachinDeshpandealongthewaywhitegoingtomeetthe petitionerandhisexplainingthethingshappened.Butthesaidfactis not at all found in the first complaint. The subsequent developments emerging from the second complaint clearly reflect an afterthought and a"nattempttofalselyimpticatetheaccused.Suchdevelopmentsvitiate the entire case of the de-facto complainant, as they not only erode the credibflit4of the complainant but also indicate abuse of process' It t-: " -/ -/ Page l0 of t I wetl-setlled principle that when-the- foundational version is materialy altered without cogent explanation, the case loses its sanctity and becomeri unworthy of acceptance at the threshold. todging of two complairrts basing on the same incident is not been disputed by the de_ facto cornplainant. The main reason, as seen from both the complaints, for the 2"d respondent to meet the petitioner is pertaining to non_ paymenl. of salaries to the stalf by the petitioner. The said fact is reflected in both the complaints. In the case of state of punjab v. Dharam singho the Hon'ble Apex court had categorically herd, in this regard, lhat cieiayed and improved second complaint can be a ground tbr quashing. 12' In view of two complaints, there is every possibility of confusio:r as to whether the first complaint is to be taken into consideriltion or the second one-. Even in the investigation neither the police n'r the de-facto complainant has brought on record the first complaint' The said fact establishes the suppression of material facts by the de-facto complainant. The above facts obviously weakens the case of ttre de-facto comprainant with regard to its veraciqr.

13. under these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the present criminar petition is liablc to be allowed quashing ulzc ro4 scc 637 Page ll ofll i i , i : I I i I I I I , I i the impugned proceedings against the petitioner as the complaints lodged by the de-facto complainant lost their credibility. L4. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in cC No. L42 of 2ol9 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shatl also stand dismissed- --+-. I ...' I / To, SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 /,TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER 1 The Soecial Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-Vll Addl' oil'trrcianJ S-essions Judge, R-R' District, L'B' Nagar'

2. The S.H.O., P.S- Raidurgam, Cyberabad' 3. One CC to SRl. B CHINNAPA REDDY Advocate [OPUCI 1. One CC to Sri Narapuraju Avanees, Advocate (OPUCi 5.orre@toTHEPUBLICPRoSEcUToR(TG)AdvocatetouTl 6. Two CD CoPies w PSL HIGH COURT DATEDi27rc6l202i ? ( S o C) ? 2 JAN 2026 ORDER CRLP.No.5390 of 2019 ALLOW'ING THE CRLP 6