1 S.Gopal v. State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.C. No.260i2018, on the file of learned (Vll Addl.Dt.and Sessions Judge (SCST PoA Act) L.B.Nagar at Hyderabad, under SC/ST POA Act including appearance of the Petitioners. pending disposal of Writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Between:

1. State of Telangana, rep by its Prl.Secty., Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500001 .

2. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli PS. Hyderabad ..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND 1 S.Gopal, S/o Ramchandraiah, Tahsildar (Retd) Aged 68 years, Ex-Secretary and firlg.Committee lVlember, H.no.9-1-1, [Vlaninagar, Hyderabad - 5000046. K.Sailu, S/o.Ramaiah, Tahsildar (Retd), aged 64 years, I\,4g.committee [\,4ember, H.No.9-1-27, fVlaninagar, Hyderabad - 500046 2

3. J.Ramchandaiah, S/o.Shivaiah, Asst.Registrar, Coop. Dept O/o,DCO, Keesara, IValkajgiri and [\,4edchal ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couft may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 0.1 .07.2022 passed in WP No 2768912022. lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Between: J.Ramchandaiah @ Ramachandra, S/o.Shivaiah,Aged about 50 years,Occ; Govt Service, R/o MlG19, Second Floor, Balajinagar, Kkukatpally, H yd'erabad-500072. ...PETITIONERS AND

1. S.Gopal,_S/o Ramchandraiah, Tahsildar (Retd) Aged 68 years, Ex-Secretary and Mg.Committee Member, H.no.9-1-1, N/anin'agir, Hyrleiabad - 5000046.

2. K.Sailu, S/o.Ramaiah, Tahsildar (Retd), aged 64 years, Mg.committee [\,4ember, H.No-9-1-27, lt4aninagar, Hyderabad - 500046

3. State of Telangana, rep by its Prl.Secty., Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-500001 . 4- The Station House Officer, Gachibowli PS. Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTSM/RIT PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order dated 0110712022 passed in W.P 27689 of 2022 by dismissing the above Writ Petition with exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. V.SATYANARAYANA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : SRI KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE S RI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL wRtT PETITION No.27689 OF 2022 ORDER: 1 This writ petition is fited under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia seeking writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings against the petitioners herein in S.C.No.260 of 2018 on the fite of the Court of the learned Vil Additional District and Sessions Judge, (SCST PoA Act), L.B.Nagar, as bad in law and to consequently quash the same. 2 The factual matrix that ted to the fiting of the present writ petition is as follows: 3 The third respondent herein who is Assistant Registrar, District Cooperative Officer office, MedchaL District and who is member of the Hyderabad District Government Emptoyees Cooperative Housing Society (for short 'the Society), vide membership No.877, todged a comptaint before the second respondent herein with the fottowing attegations: 4 The Society has given ptot to him to construct house atong with others in Ptot No. 566, Sy. No. 203/Part and 210/Part at Gachibouti, Manikonda Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal to an extent of 288 -- yards, vide Certificate No.606 dated 4-6-201 1, and had given plots to others who are working in various branches of society. Some employees constructed houses in their ptots, and the third respondent atso intended to construct the house and informed to Sri K. Laxman President and S.Gopat, Committee Members. However, K.Laxman and S.Gopat demanded to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as bribe. He further stated that he haits from SC poor family and is not in a position to pay 10.00 lakhs and onty to pay an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs, and requested them to qive their cooperation to construct the house. Then they threatened him and demanded to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs, if not, they witl cancel the ptot. Thereafter the petitioners again catted him and asked about the amount, and then atso he reiterated his stand of onty Rs.5.00 lakhs. Thereafter, the petitioners changed their version and bore grudge against me and stated that a pipe line was laying in his ptot and threatened him not to construct and structures in the ptot. They started the pipe line layout works from his ptot with JCB, in spite of his request. The third respondent fited WP No.28003/2017 wherein this Court vide order dated 13-8- 2017 passed certain directions pursuant to which the third respondent started constructing a house and taid the foundation stone on 3-9.2017. On that same day, Sri K. Laxman, President, Committee Member S. Gopat gave comptaint again him before the Gachiboul.i Police Station and then the police officiaLs after verifying atl the documents, found the correctness and went away. 5 lt is the further and specific atlegation of the third respondent that thereafter the President of the Society and other unknown persons tried to attack him, abusing him in fitthy tanguage and threatened him to stop the work otherwise they witt kitt him. Since then the third respondent is continuing the construction works, and dumping att the construction materiat, and started work. White so, on 17 .9.2017 the petitioners herein and some others suddenty attacked him and abused him in fitthy [anguage in the name of his caste and atso manhandted him. 6 Basing on the above comptaint, a case in Cr.No.512 of 7017 under Sections 323, 477 and 506 rlw 34 of IPC and Section 3 (i) (r) (s) of S.C & S.f (PoA) Act, 201 5 was registered against the petitioners and a notice under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C. was atso issued to them. Now the present petition is fited seeking to quash the said proceedings. --II 7 The contention of Sri N.Ramachandr Rao, the learned senior counse[ for the petitioners is that the third respondent who is junior most employee appointed in the year '1996 on compassionate grounds in the Cooperative Department intruded as member getting his name inserted in the computerized list of members by maniputation basing on fictitious Xerox copy of remittance receipt (betong to D.Srinivas, Dy. Surveyor) in cotlusion with K.Rajender Reddy, B.Satyanarayana Reddy, Sr.lnsptr., (rel.ative of K.Rajender Reddy) and K.Vema Reddy, Treasurer during 2008. He got atlotment of two ptots @ 120 Sq.yds each (merged into one ptot), which were allotted to Sri M.Raj Kumar and A.Manik Rao, senior members vide layout through lottery on

26.11.2006. He would further submit that after election of Managing Committee members, from 20.03.2014 to 19.03.2019, the Society received catena of complaints about intrusion of inetigibte persons as members, most of them are from Cooperative Department and their companions, removing genuine senior members fraudutently in coltusion with persons referred eartier, maniputating the records inserting their names with handwriting as such the Managing Committee reviewed the transactions remitted into the Bank with those entries made in the cash book by N.Ramakrishna, Junior lnspector (who got intruded his name in the cash book) and detected names of (22) persons (Coop. Dept.) and (68) persons of other departments as members by manipulation, and decided to remove such intruded persons. The third respondent is behind episode, invotving Dandora gang. 8 lt is his further submission that the Respondent No.3 suspecting removal process initiated by the Committee, attempted to trespass into Ptot No.561 on 03.09.2017. The Petitioner No.2 having arrived at the spot at 10.30 AM noticed that there are (30 to 40) anti-social elements at the site brought by the Respondent No.3. The Petitioner No.2 having prevented them from trespass, todged comptaint before Gachibowti P.S. on 03.09.2017, vide G.D.No.'14 at 20.00 Hrs. The potice visited the spot immediatety. The Society since submitted a comptaint on 03.09.2017 to stop work and remove material, Executive Authority stopped the unauthorized work. He further subm'itted that the Managing Committee having considered the material on record vide resotution Dt: 13.09.201 7, issued a Notice Dt:.14.09.2017 to the inetigibte persons (who intruded into the Society) to appear before the General Body on 29.09.7017. The Respondent No.3 along with other inetigibte persons were removed from the Society, vide Generat Body resotution Dt:29.09.2017 and it has become final. Having got knowledge about the Notice Dt:14.09.7017, the Respondent No.3 gathered Dandora group and land mafia at the site on 17.09.7017 and . todged the subject complaint on 26.09.7017 before the respondent No.2 vide FIR No.512/17 u/s.3(1)(r)(i)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 rtw Sec.323, 427,506 IPC with incorrect allegations that we went to ptot No.566 on 17.09.2017 and abused him in the name of his caste etc., which is culminated into the impugned proceedings against petitioners. The Respondent No.3 todged the subject complaint as a counter btast to the complaint todged by the petitioners and the Managing Committee on 03.9.2017. 9 lt is his predominant contention that though the alteged incident took ptace on 17.9.2017, the third respondent todged the instant complaint on 26.09.2017 and as there is 9 unexptained days' delay, moreover, the petitioner No.2 herein also betongs to SC Madiga community. lt is further submitted that to the notice issued under Section 41ACr.P.C by the ACP, Madhapur, the petitioners have submitted their repty Dt:21.01.2018 exptaining that no such incident took ptace either on 03.09.2017 and 17.09.20'17 as al.Leged and the allegations are invented for the maintainability of the comptaint. 10 The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Respondent No.3 contested the Society etections hetd on 19.03.2014 and was unsuccessfut. Since then having devetoped grudge, he made attempts to destabilize the Committee by not allowing the Committee from functioning peacefutty. Hence he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. 11 ln support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel retied on the fottowing decisions: 1) Hitesh Vermo ys. State of lJttarakhand', 21 iri Gulam lrlustafo vs. The stote of Kornatoko2, and 3) B. Venkateswaran vs. P. Bokthavatchalom3. 12 The third respondent and the State fited independent counter affidavits reiterating the averments made in the FIR as wetl as the investigation done by the investigating officer and would submit that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners. ' (2020) 1o scc 710 I zoz3 (3-4) scJ 511 t (7o2il 11 182 'cc 13 Sri Krishna Murthy Devarakonda, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that this is not the stage to quash the proceedings since the altegations levetted against the petitioners are grave in nature and hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 14 As seen from the record, there are rivat contentions between the parties with regard to allotment of ptots to the members of the Hyderabad District Government Emptoyees Cooperative Housing Society. The contention of the petitioners was that the third respondent viotated the norms and had intruded as member getting his name inserted in the computerized tist of members by manipulation basing on fictitious Xerox copy of remittance receipt betonging to one D.Srinivas, Deputy Surveyor in co[lusion with one K.Rajender Reddy, B.Satyanarayana Reddy-Senior lnspector and K.Vema Rddy - Treasurer during 2008 and he got allotment of two ptots each 120 sq. yards merged into one ptot which were attotted to one M.Raja Kumar and A.Manik Rao who are the senior members vide layout through lottery on26.11.2006. However, atl these aspects are matters of triat before the competent Court. This Court white exercising jurisdiction under Section 487 Cr.P.C. cannot adjudicate the factual aspects. -- 15 As far as the contention of the third respondent that the petitioners misbehaved and scotded him in the name of his caste is concerned, except the sotitary statement of the third respondent, there is no corroborative evidence put forth by the prosecution. More so, the second petitioner herein atso betongs to the S.C. community, in which event, it is imptausibte that the petitioners have insutted the third respondent in the name of his caste. As far as the offences retate to lPC, lam of the opinion that there is prima facie case against the petitioners to try for the offences punishable under Sections 323,477 and 506 r/w 34 of lPC. 16 Further, the Hon'bte Supreme Court in Karuppudayar vs. Statea held at para No.1.l hetd as fottows:

11. lt coutd thus be seen that, to be a ptace'within pubtic view', the ptace shoutd be open where the members of the pubtic can witness or hear the utterance made by the Accused to the victim. lf the atteged offence takes ptace within the four corners of the wat[ where members of the pubtic are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken ptace at a ptace within pubtic view. 17 For a[[ the above reasons, and in view of the ratio Laid down by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the case cited supra, this writ petition is a[[owed in part and the offence under Section 3 (i) (r) (s) of 5.C & o 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215 S.T (PoA) Act, 2015 is struck down against the petitioners. However, the petitioners are directed to face trial for the remaining offences. 18 As a sequet, miscetlaneous petitions if any shatt stand ctosed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SI TANT REGIST RAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Prl.Secty., Home Department' Secretariat' S Hyderabad-500001 of Telangana,

2. The Station House Officer, Gachibowli PS Hyderabad 3 One CC to SRI V.SATYANARAYANA PRASAD' Advocate. IOPUCI 4, Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI KRISHNA MURTHY DEVARAKONDA' Advocate lOPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies BSK GJP ( A HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 910212025 ,\ 2 'l i,, ir 21125 .r+ t ..:: .i p,tr c HeO ORDER WP.No.27689 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS vA\fr E 2n >) q