Marri Ramulu vs The State Of A.P. Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3989 Tel

           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

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

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

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

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

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