Sanikommu Venkateswar Reddy 2 ... vs The State Of A.P., Sdpo, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 82 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.13793 of 2011

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC. No.57

of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class at Kothagudem arising out of the Crime No.116 of 2011 under

Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'the Act').

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 17.06.2011 at

8.30 hours the 2nd respondent/complainant came to the P.S.

Kothagudem I Town and lodged a complaint stating that she was a

resident of Mangapeta village of Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam

District and eking livelihood by means of cultivation. She had quarter

less 3 acres of land in Sy.No.858/E/2 to an extent of Ac.0.11 guntas,

Sy.No.858/E to an extent of Ac.1.00, Sy.No.860/E to an extent

Ac.0.38 guntas in front of water plant at Mangapeta village. On

12.06.2011 morning at about 10.30 hours while she was ploughing

cotton plants and collecting cotton in her fields, the petitioner No.1/A-

1 and his sons A-2 to A-4 came on motor cycle and brought ten coolie

workers in a tractor and A-1 to A-4 abused her in the name of her

caste stating that the land belonged to them and they would get

registered the remaining land also and bet her with hands, dragged by

her hair and A-2 tried to remove her garments and bet her at the places Dr.GRR,J

on her body which she could not reveal and some one in the tractor

told in lambadi language that being a woman how dare she was to

come across the petitioners. At that time, water plant workers, leather

factory workers, her villagers Guguloth Lakshman, Kurra Vali, Kurra

Chandu, Guguloth Hanumanthu, Vali Bhukya Babu witnessed the

incident.

3. Basing on the said report, DSP, Kothagudem I Town Police

registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2011 under Section 323 read

with 34 and Section 3 (i)(x) of the Act. After investigation, the

Additional Superintendent of Police, Kothagudem filed charge-sheet

against A-1 to A-4 for the above offences and the same was taken on

file by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem

numbering as PRC. No.57 of 2011 and issued summons to the

accused.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public

Prosecutor and perused the material placed on record. There is no

representation for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioner No.1 died and the petitioner Nos.2 to 4/A-2 to A-4 were the

sons of the petitioner No.1/A-1, the petitioners owned agricultural

lands adjacent to the land of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent

made attempts to encroach and grab the land of the petitioners and in

that connection the petitioners filed suit in O.S. No.174 of 2011 on the Dr.GRR,J

file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, against the 2nd

respondent and obtained interim injunction in I.A. No.280 of 2011

dated 19.07.2011. The 2nd respondent having failed to succeed in her

attempts to grab the land of the petitioners, taking undue advantage of

her caste, concocted a false story and lodged a complaint only to

harass the petitioners by one way or the other and to coerce them to

withdraw the suit. It fact, there was no such incident occurred as

alleged by the 2nd respondent. As per the FIR, the alleged incident

said to have been taken on 12.06.2011 but the complaint was given on

17.06.2011 and there was an abnormal delay of 5 days in lodging the

complaint. On a perusal of the charge-sheet, no witness came forward

to substantiate the case of the 2nd respondent and this would clearly

falsify the above case filed by her.

The complaint given by the 2nd respondent was with malafides and

there was no prima facie case made against them to connect them with

the alleged offence and hence continuation of the proceedings against

the petitioners was an abuse of process of law and hence liable to be

quashed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor requested to permit the Court to

proceed with the trial as the investigation conducted by the Police

would disclose prima facie allegations against the petitioners herein.

7. Perused the material made available on record.

Dr.GRR,J

8. The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent would disclose prima

facie allegations made by her against the petitioners herein. She

stated that she was bet by the petitioners with hands and they dragged

her by hair and A-2 tried to remove her garments and she was bet at

places on her body which she could not reveal and that she was

abused in the name of her caste. The Police after investigation also

filed charge-sheet against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 for the offence

under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Act stating that the complainant was the

owner of quarter less 3 acres of land in Sy.No.858/E/2, Sy.No.858/E

to an extent of Ac.0.11 guntas and Ac.1.00 respectively of Mangapeta

village and the Tahsildar, Kothagudem also certified that she was the

owner of the land in the said survey numbers. Therefore, the

investigation prima facie would disclose that A-1 to A-4 entered into

the land of L.W.1 illegally with an intention to dispossess her from the

land and committed the above offences.

9. The petitioners filed a copy of the registered sale deed dated

15.10.2009 to show that the 1st petitioner purchased the land to an

extent of 0.25 guntas in Sy.No.858/E from one Malothu Panthulu.

The husband of the de facto complainant by name G.Ramdasu signed

as a witness to the said sale deed. The boundaries of the land would

show that the land of G.Ramdasu was towards the eastern side of the

said land. They also filed a copy of the decree in O.S. No.174 of 2011

dated 19.01.2012 to show that the suit was decreed in their favour,

which was an ex parte decree. The petitioners filed the copy of the Dr.GRR,J

petition filed by them before the Tahsildar, Kothagudem under

Section 4 of the ROR Act to enter the name of the 1st petitioner in the

revenue records and to issue Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds in

their favour.

10. The Police, in the charge-sheet contended that they collected the

pahanies from the Tahsildar, Kothagudem and the 2nd respondent/

complainant was in physical possession of the land. The complainant

was alleging that the petitioners encroached into her land and

damaged the crop, while the petitioners were contending that the 2nd

respondent was interfering with their possession and enjoyment of

their land. Civil suit filed by the petitioners vide O.S. No.174 of 2011

was decreed ex parte in their favour on 19.01.2012. This Court

cannot make a roving enquiry as to who was in possession of the land

and who was interfering with the possession of the others. As the

complaint was disclosing prima facie allegations against the

petitioners that they abused her in the name of her caste and necked

her out from the land and police after investigation filed charge-sheet

against the petitioners herein, the truth or otherwise of the allegations

made by the 2nd respondent/complainant can be decided after a full-

fledged trial.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment

of the High Court of Judicature, Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh at Dr.GRR,J

Hyderabad in P.Bhaskar Raju Vs. State of Telangana and others1

wherein it was held as under:

17. So, from the above judgments, it is clear that irrespective of the place of offence being a 'public place' or 'private place', it must be within 'public view' i.e. member/members of public present and witnessed the incident to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act.

18. Coming to the instant case, the complaint allegations would read as if the offence took place in the house of petitioner/accused, but it is not mentioned about the 'public view' i.e. presence of public and witnessing the incident. As such, from the facts, it must be held that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act is not made out as per law and continuation of investigation will thereby amount to abuse of process of law.

12. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2 wherein it was held as

under:

15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities

2015(2) ALD (Crl.) 150

2021 Law Suit (SC) 567 Dr.GRR,J

at the hands of uppercastes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of castebased atrocities.

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings.

13. In the present case, the 2nd respondent/complainant stated the

names of the witnesses who witnessed the incident in her complaint

itself. There were grave allegations made by her in the complaint

against the petitioners herein. The truth of the said allegations can be

decided only after full-fledged trial. This Court could not presume

what the witnesses would state before the trial Court and whether they

would support the case of the victim or not. Therefore, it is considered

not fit to quash the proceedings, at this stage itself.

14. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J January 07, 2022 LSK