HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.25 of 2023
ORDER :
This revision case is filed against the orders in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2021, in S.C.No.8 of 2019, dated 11.10.2022 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-Cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Warangal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 1st respondent and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 2nd respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that initially a private complaint has been filed by the defacto complainant alleging that on 09.05.2016 at about 9:30 a.m. while he was attending plumbing work, in Sy.Nos.138, 139, 140, 141 and 142 situated at Mattewada Village, Hasanarthy Mandal, Warangal belonging to one Polam Anil Reddy, one Ravinder Reddy i.e., the petitioner went there and enquired with the complainant as to what he was doing there and stated that "ee jaga vanidi kadu 2 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023 naadi". In the meanwhile, Polam Anil Reddy went there and showed the petitioner an ad-interim injunction order passed in I.A.No.2306 of 2015, in O.S.No.1275 of 2015. On that, the petitioner got angry, abused the complainant saying that "Are madiga lanja koduka ee jagala inkokkasari adugu pedithe nee kallu erraggodutha lanja koduka" and also abused Polam Anil Reddy in filthy language and threatened to kill him. The said complaint was referred to the Station House Officer, Hasanparthy Police Station who registered a case, in Crime No.202 of 2016 against the petitioner. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 506 of IC and Section 3(x) (vii) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the charges leveled against him, but the trial Court dismissed the said petition with a finding, that at this stage the defence taken by the accused and the material relied upon by him cannot be 3 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023 considered. Further, the finding of the trial Court is that the orders passed in the civil case and the proceedings before the revenue authorities cannot be considered in deciding the petition. The petitioner specifically contended that on the date of alleged incident he did not go to the disputed land and undisputedly on that day, he was in the station.
5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a long gap of three months in preferring the complaint by the complainant. Even as per the private complaint, the alleged incident took place on 09.05.2016 and on that day, the complainant has not preferred any report to the Police and the said private complaint was referred to Police on 24.09.2010 which clearly disclose that a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner and it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 and prayed to allow the revision petition..
6. On the other hand, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to set aside the orders of the 4 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023 trial Court. It is the specific contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the trial Court cannot go into the merits of the case at the time of discharge and it is a matter of fact to be adduced at the time of trial.
7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that FIR has been registered, basing on the case being forwarded by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.p.C. The First Information Report itself discloses that they received private complaint copy from the Court and basing on it, a case was registered in Crime No.202 of 2016 dated 24.09.2016 against the revision petitioner.
8. As per the contents of FIR, it is evident that the incident took place on 09.05.2016 at about 9:30 a.m. The complaint was filed by one Doma Raju/complainant who was working as a plumber in the lands of Polam Anil Reddy alleging that he was abused by the revision petitioner in filthy language that too in the name of his caste. The complaint copy also reveal that Polam Anil Reddy who is the owner of the land has shown the 5 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023 ad-interim injunction to the petitioner granted vide I.A.No.2306/2015 in O.S.No.1275/2015 by V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for which, the accused/petitioner got angry and abused the complainant in filthy language in the name of his caste and also abused Polam Anil Reddy in filthy language.
9. The complaint copy disclose that it has been filed on 24.09.2016 though the incident took place on 09.05.2016. Furthermore, the complaint copy is very much silent as to what prevented the petitioner, for three months in preferring the complaint. It is also relevant to mention that on the date of incident, it is not only the complainant who was present on the spot but one Polam Anil Reddy was also present and he was also been abused by the revision petitioner. Further, it is not explained by the prosecution as to what made Polam Anil Reddy not to prefer any complaint against the petitioner being the owner of the land if at all the petitioner has abused them. It is also specific plea that P.Anil Reddy obtained ad-interim injunction against the suit schedule property vide I.A.No.2306 6 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023 of 2015 in O.S.No.1275 of 2015, on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, which clearly reveals that there are civil disputes between said Anil Reddy and the petitioner herein.
10. At this juncture, it is necessary to go through the precedents of the Apex Court judgment reported in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Maninder Singh.1. In the said case, a quash petition has been filed to quash the proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner, wherein the Apex Court has come to a conclusion that when a suit and the First Appeal are pending on the subject matter, and when the issue is with regard to ownership of the land which is yet to be finalized in the said suit or in the First Appeal, the criminal complaint between the parties need to be scrutinized meticulously. It is also been observed by the Apex Court that the observations cannot be passed adversely effecting any of the parties in pending civil litigation. Therefore, High Courts ought to have considered 1 AIR 2015 SC 3656 7 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023 certain facts placed before the Court and ought to have quashed it.
11. May be it is a question of quash petition, but in the present case also there are civil disputes between the parties and there is every chance of implicating the petitioner falsely in criminal case in order to satisfy their egos and when a matter appears to be purely civil in nature, the trial Court ought not have referred the matter under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. Moreover, the private complaint was filed after a gap of three months after the incident.
12. In G.Sagar Suri And Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2, it is held as follows:-
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction- under this 2 2002 (2) SCC 636 8 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023 Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
13. As per the above proposition, it is for the Court to see what was the genesis of the crime? and if it has arisen, whether it amounts to criminal offence or not? In the present case, the genesis of the complaint is that there are civil disputes between P.Anil Reddy and Ravinder Reddy and that the complainant preferred a complaint against Ravinder Reddy/revision petitioner after a lapse of three months.
14. Admittedly, suit is filed in the year, 2015. Subsequent to filing of the suit, present FIR has come out of the result of the case being referred under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate.
15. Considering the rival contentions of either parties and merits of the case, it can be construed that there is a lapse of three months in filing the complaint and the said complaint has come out of the civil disputes between the parties. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considerable view that 9 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023 it is a fit case to allow the petition by setting aside the orders of the trial Court, and the petition is liable to be discharged.
16. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed discharging the petitioner from S.C.No.8 of 2019 dated 11.10.2022 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-Cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Warangal.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 12.04.2023 dv