Telangana High Court
Y.Ravindranath Reddy, vs The Public Prosecutor on 10 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINALPETITION No.9671 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.87 of 2021, on the file of learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nalgonda District, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (f) (g) of the SC/STs (POA) Amendment Act-2015.
2. Heard Sri M.V.S.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Sri J. Ram mohan Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.07.2020 at 12.00 hours respondent No.2 filed complaint stating that the petitioners were criminally intruded into her Agricultural Lands to an extent of 05.00 acres in Sy.No.540/1/1-1 and threatened her with dire consequences. As such, she filed a complaint before the Mattampally Police Station and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner-No.1 Company along with other associated companies has purchased total land situated at Gurrampode Rehabilitation Centre, Padaveedu Revenue Village, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District through registered sale deeds and petitioner No.1-company is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. On 20.08.2015, petitioner No.1-company made an application to Mandal Revenue Officer for demarcation of boundaries to its lands. But, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not taking any action on its representation. Therefore, petitioner No.1-company approached this Court by filing W.P.No.29433 of 2015 and the same was disposed of keeping it open for the petitioner therein to submit an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mattampally Mandal, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District and if any such application is made within the stipulated period, appropriate action be taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mattampally Mandal, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. In view of the same, Revenue authorities have demarcated the lands and shown the boundaries.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during the process of establishing company, petitioner No.1-company requested the electricity authorities to provide transformers to the company land and accordingly the authorities while installing the transformers, respondent No.2 and other persons demanded money from the petitioner No.1-company, for which, the company disagreed 3 and said that company will provide job only, as respondent No.2 and others have not agreed for the same, lodged a false complaint against the petitioner No.1-company. He further stated that a member of SC community weaponize the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for bringing under preview of the stringent penal law a purely civil dispute between the parties. As such, he prayed the Court to allow the petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the parties and material available on record, it appears that there are civil disputes between the parties. However, the civil disputes are not a ground to quash the proceedings as there are serious allegations and victims are claiming that they are adjacent land owners of accused No.1 and the petitioners are harassing the victims. Further under Section 3(1) (f) (g) of the Sc/Sts (POA) Amendment Act-2015 are also registered against accused No.1, therefore, it requires trial.
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows: 1
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 "The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall standclosed.
____________________________ JUSTICE SMT.K.SUJANA Date:10.06.2024 ssm