High Court · 2025

1 . The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Sri Thurpati Chinna Anjaiah, S/o T.Yellaiah , Age 49 yrs, Occ.Mandal Prala Parishat President, R/o Thoruru ( V & tvl), Mahaboobabad District, ...Respondents Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to call for the final report in SC.No.122 of 2021 on the file of the Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge (for SC/ST Cases) Warangal and quash the same as abuse of process of Law. l.A.NO:2OF2022 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 Stay the trail and further proceedings in SC.No.122 of 2021 on the file of the Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge (for SC/ST Cases) Warangal including the presence of the Petitioners, pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G L Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 7 r) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O72 OF 2022 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 3, seeking to ,qrrash the proceedings against them in S.C.No. 122 <tf 202 1 pending on the hle of VII Ac.ditional District & Sessions Judge (for SC/ST cases) Wrarangal, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 r:f [rrdian Penal Code and Sections 3(2). (va) of Scheduled (laste ald Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act-20 1 5.

2. Heard Mr.G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners zurd Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent- 1/ State. There is no representa.tiorr on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service of notice.

3. The brief facts of the case a-re that on 06.04.2018 the de-facto complainant bought 5OO Sq. feet and 0.12 guntas of land in S'7.No.3 in the Village of Matedu from one 2 EVhr Crl.P.No.6072 of2022 Bomma Uppalaiah arid got registered the sdrl-e on his narne. While so, due to personal needs he decided to sell the same land to other persons. On 19.03.2027 at about

12.O0 hours A1 to A3 criminally trespassed into his land and damaged 15 erected boundar5r poles, on knowing this he immediately went to the spot and found that A1 to ,4'3 caused damage to the tune of Rs.2O,O0O/-. Meanwhile, A1 to A'3 phoned to one Peddaboina Venkanna, resident of Matedu, who was willing to purchase the subject land and abused the complainant over phone by touching his caste. The said conversation was informed by the said Peddaboina Venkanna to the complainant. Due to busy works he delayed to report.

4. On 14.04.2021 basing on the complaint made by the de-facto complainant, a case is registered in Cr.No.84 of 2O2l of Thormr Police Station, Mahabubabad District against A1 and A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 44T and 427 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2), (rr") of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act-2O 15. 7 (- J EVtat Crl.P.No.6072 of2022

5. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against Al imd A3 and the sarne' is numbered as S.C.No. 122, of 2O2l on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Juclge (for SC/ST cases) Wa-rangal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submittr:d that the petitioners earlier filed Quash petitiorL vide Crl.P.No.367Ct of 2021, seeking to quash of FIR No.84 of 2021, in which this Court initially gralted interinr order later, the samo was closed as llnal report filed. Furtl rer, the allegation against the petitioners are that the1. abur;ed the complainant o'zer telephone and there exists a civil rlispute between the parties and no public view or direct connection is made out in the present case, as the conversation was held over Telephone. He further. submits thrr.t the

2.d respondenr- by taking undue advantage of his caste, using his post as Mandal Praja Parishad President (I[Pp) of Thourur Mar clal with the support of local politicians grabbed the leurds pertaining to the petitioners. He iurther submits that pima-facie there is a delay in lodging the complaint and reason for delay not explained, which itself 4 EryJ CrLP,No.6072 of 2022 r\ is fatal to tfre case of the prosecution. He furthe-r submits that without there being any specific allegations against the petitioners in the F.I.R., the present complaint has been Iiled by the complainant with a malafide intention to harass them. He further submits that no material placed to prove criminal trespass or damage caused to the property and the present complaint is filed only to harass the petitioners with the support of local politicians, which is abuse of process of law. To substantiate his claim learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kantppud.agar Vs. State represented bg the Deputy Superintendent oJ Police, Lalgudi Trichg & Ors., wherein it is observed that d77. It could. thus be seen thqt, to be a place 'within publlc uieut', the place shouw be open where the members ol the public can urltness or hear the ulterance made bg the a.ccused. to the victim. IJ the alleged o;ffence takes place withln the four corners of the uall shere mem,bers of the public dre not present, the,a it ca flnot be sald. tI,.;a,t it has taken plq.ce at a place utlthlrt public vieus." Hence, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted, the truth 7 a \ 5 E-ryJ CrLP.No.6072 of 2022 cannot be elicited. Therefore, he seeks to disriiss the Crimina,l Petition.

8. An offr:nce under Section 3(2), (va) of SC, S'l (POA) Amendment. l.ct would be made out only if the victim is humiliateci vrit-hin public view for being SC or ST and with that intention, any overt act or mischief is committed. In the present scenario, it is alleged that the accused made a call to LW rL Peddaboina Venkanna ard abused the complainant by touching his caste. Therefore, thr: entire conversation between the petitioners and LlV2 wrls only through a ptrone call. Therefore, in my considered liew the said act would not amount to an offence punishablt: under SC, ST (POA) Amendment Act.

9. Further. the contents of the F.I.R. also reve al that general allegations are leveled against the pet:.tioners herein and ncr specihc and distinct allegations arr: made against them. In the absence of any specific role att ributed to the petitioners/Al and A3 it would be unjust if they are forced to go through the tribulations of the trial for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Pen:rl Code I I N 6 EryJ CrLP.No.6072 of 2022 n and Sections 3(2), (va) of Scheduled Caste and.scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act-2O15.

10. Having regard to the submissions made by the 'learned counsel and upon careful consideration of the material available on record, ttris Court is of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and ,A.3 in S.C.No.122 of 2O2l pending on the file of learned VII Additionat District & Sessions Judge (for SC/ST cases) Warangal. Accordingly, the proceedings in S.C.No. 122 of 2021 pending on the file of learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (for SC/ST cases) Warangal against the petitioners/Al and ,A.3 are concerned are hereby quashed. I I . Accordihgly, the Criminal 'Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thorrur 2. The Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge (for SC/ST Cases) Warangal 3. The Station House Officer, Thorrur Police Station, Mahabubabad District 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri G L Narasim Two CD Copies

5. 6. ha Rao, Advocate IOPUCI -4 HIGH COURT DATED:3010112025 ORDER CRLP.No.6072 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE CRLP ow' WN , .a i: I 'ir 2I ittli ruii > ? oT, * Sl/rfCH ,;l) *