THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9280 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner - A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.261 of 2013 of Jammikunta Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered against him for the offence under Section 3 (2) (iii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The respondent No.2-de facto complainant lodged a report before the Police on 18.08.2013 at 9.30 AM stating that on 13.08.2013 A1 and A2 ploughed the pathway of the farmers and planted the sprouts of paddy. When the respondent No.2 questioned the petitioner-A1, he did not respond, but keeping it in mind, A1 and A2 together burnt his hay stock in his land. He witnessed the said incident. Basing on the report, the above crime was registered against A1 and A2.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for respondent No.2-de facto complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were false. There were disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, as admitted by the respondent No.2 himself, for the past sometime regarding the land. The petitioner filed O.S No.335 of 2012 against the respondent Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlP.No.9280 of 2013 No.2 and his two wives in the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, Karimnagar for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land measuring Ac.1.25 guntas in Sy.No.282 situated in Ramannapalle H/o.Dharmaram Village, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. An ad-interim injunction was granted on 21.12.2012 in I.A .No.960 of 2012 in O.S. No.335 of 2012 restraining the respondent No.2 and his two wives and others from interfering with the schedule property. The petitioner raised green gram in his land. Despite the interim injunction order, the respondent No.2 ploughed the said land and damaged the crop in the absence of the petitioner and therefore, he lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Jammikunta Police Station against respondent No.2 on 05.08.2013. The complaint was received as Petition No.1032 and was acknowledged by the Jammikunta Police. However, no action was taken by them. He further submitted that in retaliation against the civil suit in O.S. No.335 of 2012 and the complaint lodged on 05.08.2013 before the Jammikunta Police, the respondent No.2 filed the present complaint on 18.08.2013 making false allegations. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were absolutely false. The contents of the report, even if taken on their face value, did not make out any offence against the petitioner much less the offence under Section 3 (2) (iii) of the SC & ST Act.
Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlP.No.9280 of 2013
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the eye witness Marampalli Yellaiah, mentioned by the respondent No.2 in the complaint, was his farm servant and in connection with another dispute about the adjacent land, one Uppulu Rajeshwar Rao filed a case against the respondent No.2 and the said Marampalli Yellaiah filed a case against the said Uppulu Rejeshwar Rao and his brother for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act before the Jammikunta Police, which was registered as Crime No.138 of 2007 and on committal by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, it was numbered as Sessions Case No.15 of 2008. The said case ended in acquittal, observing that Marampalli Yellaiah filed the complaint as a counter blast and his Master Rama Swamy driven him to file it involving the accused therein in a grave offence under the SC & ST Act to harass him. The conduct of the respondent No.2 would clearly show that he would foist false cases against others under the provisions of SC & ST Act to harass them to make them to withdraw their complaints/suits filed against him, and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on merits.
7. Perused the record. The complaint itself would disclose that the respondent No.2 stated that there were civil disputes between him and the petitioner for the past sometime regarding the land. The respondent No.2 stated that on 13.08.2013 he questioned the petitioner Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlP.No.9280 of 2013 while they were ploughing the pathway of the farmers. It was five days earlier to the lodging of the report. He had not stated as to when the incident of setting fire to hay stock took place. The record also would disclose that the petitioner filed O.S. No.335 of 2012 against the respondent No.2 and his two wives in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Huzurabad, Karimnagar District for partition on 19.12.2012 and a written statement was also filed by the defendants in the said suit on 03.04.2013. The copy of the receipt filed by the petitioner would also disclose that he lodged a complaint before the Jammikunta Police as Petition No.1032. The contention of the petitioner was that he lodged the said complaint as the respondent No.2 damaged his crop in his land in his absence and the police received the complaint but had not taken any action and in retaliation to the civil suit filed by him in O.S. No.335 of 2012 and the complaint lodged on 05.08.2013, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint on 18.08.2013. The receipt dated 05.08.2013 assumes importance as it could be presumed to be the basis for the respondent No.2 in lodging the present report which would give an impression that it could be a false report basing on the existing civil and criminal disputes between them.
8. The observation of the V Additional Sessions Judge in SC No.15 of 2008 in para-11 of the said judgment would disclose that from the evidence of PW.1 therein it was clear that there were land disputes between his master Podeti Rama Swamy (respondent No.2 Dr.GRR,J 5 CrlP.No.9280 of 2013 herein) and the accused and when A1 questioned him when he was ploughing the land of Rama Swamy and on account of A1 filing a criminal complaint against PW.1, either he had filed Ex.P1 as a counter blast or his master Rama Swamy had driven him to file it involving him in a grave offence under SC & ST Act to harass him and to make him to withdraw the complaint filed against PW.1, his master Rama Swamy and others. The complainant in the said case was one Marampalli Yellaiah who was shown as witness to this incident also. All these would raise a strong suspicion on the character of the respondent No.2 that he was in the habit of lodging false complaints against the neighbouring land owners or make his workers to lodge false complaints against the said persons to withdraw the cases filed against him.
9. As this complaint appears to be filed in retaliation to the civil cases filed against the respondent No.2 and the complaint lodged against him on 05.08.2013 before Jammikunta Police, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is considered as an abuse of process of law. As the respondent No.2 is using the criminal proceedings and the provisions of the SC & ST Act as a tool or measure to seek vengeance against the persons, who filed civil suits or complaints against him, the same cannot be allowed in the interest of justice.
Dr.GRR,J 6 CrlP.No.9280 of 2013
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner - A1 in Crime No.261 of 2013 of Jammikunta Police Station, Karimnagar District.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 30, 2021 KTL