Telangana High Court

Nagineni Penchala Subbaiah ... vs State Of Ap., Another on 28 January, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

           THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.4409 of 2014
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused 1 and 2 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2014

on the file of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, R.R. District,

registered against them for the offences under Section 323 IPC and

Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC & ST Act).

2. The case of the petitioners in brief was that the 2nd

respondent - de facto complainant lodged a complaint against them on

07.02.2014 at 10.00 AM alleging that on 07.12.2013 at 10.30 AM

while he was proceeding towards his house, on the way he found the

accused persons, along with some other labourers, started construction

work in Sandaiah Yadav Park. With an intention to inform the same to

the GHMC officials, he took photographs through his cell phone and

while he was taking the photos, the petitioners bet him with hands and

abused him in the name of his caste. Basing on the said report, the

Police Miyapur registered a case in Crime No.88 of 2014 under

Section 323 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

incident was alleged to have been taken place on 07.12.2013 but the

complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent on 07.02.2014 i.e. after Dr.GRR,J

two months from the date of the alleged incident. The complaint was

invented only for the purpose of harassing them by involving in this

case. Infact, the 1st petitioner was the absolute owner and possessor of

the house plot bearing No.432 in block No.II in Southern part of land

in Sy.No.78 (78-B as per internal division) situated at Hafeezpet

village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having

purchased the same from its original owner Mr. Molakalapalli Suba

Rao through registered sale deed document No.12157 of 2012 dated

31.12.2012. The 1st petitioner also purchased Plot Nos.440 and 441

admeasuring 438 sq. yds., through registered sale deed document

No.10528/2010 dated 18.12.2010. The 2nd respondent and some

others who were the residents of the said locality with the support of

the local politicians started harassing the owners of the open plots of

the said locality and were grabbing plots and demanding money from

the individual owners. The area where the plots of the 1st petitioner

were located were called 'Gokul Plots' situated in Sy.No.78 of

Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, which was one of the

items of the property in CS No.14/1958 before this Court. The 2nd

respondent and others were also owners of their respective plots. The

plots in the layout of Gokul Plots were still not regularized in view of

the pendency of cases before this Court. As per the information

furnished by the Municipal Authorities under the Right to Information

Act, dated 08.04.2013, no building permissions were granted by

GHMC. Taking advantage of their local residence, the 2nd respondent Dr.GRR,J

along with others resorted to grab the open plots and to extract money.

Since the plots of the 1st petitioner were open plots, the 2nd respondent

and others made a propaganda that the plots of the 1st petitioner and

other adjacent plots were described as Sandaiah Park and they were

trying to grab the plots under that guise. When the persons were

trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' plot Nos.440

and 441 in collusion with the Municipal staff, the 1st petitioner, in the

month of March, 2013 filed suit in O.S. No.115 of 2013 on the file of

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miyapur for injunction and the said suit

was pending. The owner of plot Nos.435, 433 and 442 filed W.P.

No.24487 of 2013 before this Court and this Court by order dated

28.08.2013 passed an order of status quo. The 2nd respondent and

others illegally trespassed and demolished the room in plot No.432 on

19.11.2013, the 1st petitioner filed a private complaint which was

referred to the police of Miyapur and was registered as FIR No.712 of

2013 dated 27.11.2013. In the said case, the 2nd respondent who was

accused No.3 and accused No.1 were remanded on 04.01.2014.

Thereafter, the other accused by making false statements filed Crl.P.

No.708 of 2014 and obtained an order of stay of investigation from

this Court. On 07.12.2013 when the petitioners were working at Plot

No.432, the 2nd respondent and others bet them and took the I-phone

of the 2nd petitioner and Rs.5,000/- cash and threatened the petitioners

not to enter into the plots. A complaint was lodged to the Miyapur

police, but the police did not register the case and informed that they Dr.GRR,J

would secure the I-Phone and give it to them, as there was already a

previous crime registered against the 2nd respondent and others. But

the police failed to collect the I-Phone of the 2nd petitioner. Since the

petitioners insisted for registering the case as the incident occurred on

07.12.2013 was a separate one, FIR No.774 of 2013 was registered by

the police. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed the present complaint

on 07.02.2014 as a counter blast to FIR No.774 of 2013 with an evil

intention to harass the petitioners to get them involved in a false case

under SC and ST Act. The police though having knowledge about the

earlier incidents that took place between them and the involvement of

the 2nd respondent and others in various crimes, without conducting

any preliminary enquiry registered the case against the petitioners in

FIR No.88 of 2014 for the offences under Section 323 IPC and

Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC and ST Act. There was no relationship and

acquaintance between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, as such

there was no occasion for the petitioners to know the caste and abuse

him. The 1st petitioner was the owner of his plots purchased through

registered sale deeds and as such, it was for the Municipal Authorities

to take steps in accordance with law if really the said plots were park

land but the 2nd respondent and others could not resort to unlawful

activities under the guise of false claims and could not grab the plots

by filing false complaints and prayed to quash the proceedings against

the petitioners in Crime No.88 of 2014.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

Dr.GRR,J

6. Perused the record. The record would disclose that there

were disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent with

regard to the plots in Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally

Mandal, known as Gokul Plots. The learned counsel for the

petitioners filed copies of registered sale deeds of the 1st petitioner,

which would disclose that he purchased plot No.432 in block No.II in

southern part of land in Sy.No.78 from Mr. Molakalapalli Subba Rao

vide registered document No.12157/2012 dated 31.10.2012. The

registered sale deed document No.10528/2010 also would disclose

that the 1st petitioner purchased plot Nos.440 and 441 admeasuring

438 sq. yds., from M/s.Cyrus Investments Ltd., on 18.12.2010. The

record would also disclose that the 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.115 of

2013 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Miyapur against the

defendants who were residents of Gokul Plots and against the Deputy

Commissioner of GHMC, Serilingampally Circle, for permanent

injunction as the defendants were threatening to dispossess him from

the suit property i.e. plots bearing No.440 and 441 in block No.II in

southern part of land in Sy.No.78. The learned counsel for the

petitioners had also filed the copy of the FIR in Crime No.712 of 2013

of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad which would disclose that a

private complaint was filed by the 1st petitioner against the 2nd

respondent as A3 and 9 other residents of Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet

village on 21.11.2013 that they trespassed into his house and damaged

the door of his house and attempted to kill him and his son and Dr.GRR,J

assaulted them which was referred to the police and registered as

Crime No.712 of 2013 and the police had arrested A1 and A3 in the

said crime on 04.01.2014 as per the remand case diary dated

04.01.2014. The record would also disclose that the 1st petitioner had

also lodged a complaint against the 2nd respondent and several others

on 26.12.2013 about the incident on 07.12.2013 at 9.00 AM that they

came in a group and bet him and his son and took I-phone and cash of

Rs.5,000/- from his son and warned them not to enter into the colony

and the said plot. All these documents would reveal that there were

disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and others

with regard to their plots in Sy.No.78 of Hafeezpet village

Serilingampally Mandal and several criminal and civil cases were

filed by the petitioners against the 2nd respondent and others when

they tried to dispossess them or threatened them. The present

complaint prima facie appears to be a counter blast to the cases filed

by the petitioners herein against the 2nd respondent and others. The

present complaint was also lodged with a delay of two months and no

explanation was given by the 2nd respondent for the said delay. The

complaint would not disclose to which caste or community the 2nd

respondent belonged to. The learned counsel for the petitioners

contended that as the petitioners had no acquaintance with the 2nd

respondent, there was no occasion for them to know his caste and to

abuse him in the name of his caste. The photographs filed by the

petitioners would disclose that the 2nd respondent was in possession of Dr.GRR,J

a hammer and was threatening the petitioners with it and also

damaged the wall constructed by the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment

of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Satnam Singh v. State of

Punjab and another1 wherein there was a long drawn enmity

between the parties and were involved in criminal complaints as well

as civil proceedings and the FIR was lodged with a delay of 5 months

after the incident, the same was quashed. The High Court observed

that:

"Another fact, which requires consideration is that the incident had taken place on 25.04.2010, whereas the FIR was registered on 12.09.2010 i.e. after a gap of five months. The above fact, coupled with the fact that complainant's husband and the petitioner were having long drawn enmity and were involved in criminal complaint as well as civil proceedings, the present FIR, after a gap of five months of the incident, seems to be a counter blast to the proceedings/enmity pending between the parties."

8. The present case also appears to have been filed as a

counter blast to the civil proceedings and criminal complaints initiated

by the petitioners against the 2nd respondent and others. There was a

delay of two months in lodging the FIR which was not explained.

Hence, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners in Crime No.88 of 2014 on the file of Miyapur Police

Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/31700574 Dr.GRR,J

Station, registered against the petitioners as the same would amount to

abuse of process of law.

9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2014 on the file of Miyapur Police

Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioners - Accused Nos.1 and 2.