Telangana High Court

S.Govardhan Reddy, Khammam Dt ... vs State, Rep Pp., Thrsho Kothagudem ... on 7 January, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5621 of 2013

ORDER:

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

Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC. No.68

of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate

at Kothagudem arising out of the Crime No.40 of 2012 of

Kothagudem I Town Police Station, Khammam District for the

offences under Sections 447, 427, 506 IPC and Section

3(1)(iv)(v)(x)(xi) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,

(for short 'the Act').

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the 2nd respondent

lodged a complaint before the Kothagudem I Town Police Station on

01.03.2012 at 12.00 hours alleging that she was a resident of

Mangapeta village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District and

belonged to Lambada (ST) community. She had agricultural land to

an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.858/E in the revenue village of

Sujathanagar. In that land, she had grown up green gram and lentil

crop. The petitioners, along with their relatives and other hired men

with an intention to occupy the land in Sy.No.858/E, damaged and

ploughed out the crop. When she tried to obstruct them, they abused

her in filthy language in the name of her caste and necked her out

from the land.

Dr.GRR,J

3. Basing on the said report, the SI of Police of Kothagudem I

Town Police Station registered a case in Crime No.40 of 2012 under

Section 447, 427, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(iv)(v)(x)(xi) of the Act

and issued FIR. After investigation, the Additional Superintendent of

Police, Kothagudem filed charge-sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the

above offences. The same was taken on file by the I Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem and numbered it as

PRC. No.68 of 2012 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.2 died and the petitioner No.1/A-1 was the son of the

petitioner No.2/A-2. Petitioner No.2 purchased the land admeasuring

Ac.0.25 guntas in Sy.No.858/E situated at Sujathanagar Revenue

village, Mangapeta Shivar, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District

by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5493 of

2009, dated 15.10.2009 from its lawful owner Malothu Pantulu

registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kothagudem. Ever since

the purchase of the said land, the petitioners were in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the same. The 2nd respondent was in

possession of the adjacent land of the petitioners and she made

attempts to encroach into the land of the petitioners. In order to

protect their lawful possession and legal entitlement, the petitioner Dr.GRR,J

No.2 filed O.S. No.174 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Kothagudem, against the 2nd respondent for grant of

perpetual injunction. Interim injunction was granted restraining the

2nd respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the suit schedule property.

The 2nd respondent during the pendency of the suit having come to

know that she would not succeed in the said suit, taking undue

advantage of her caste, lodged a false and frivolous complaint on

17.06.2011 before the Kothagudem I Town Police Station who in turn

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

3(1)(x) of the Act read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners were

remanded to judicial custody and later they approached this Court and

filed Criminal Petition No.13793 of 2011 and this Court granted

interim stay in Crl.P.MP.No.15770 of 2011 dated 27.12.2011. While

so, the suit filed by the 2nd petitioner was decreed against the 2nd

respondent vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2012. Inspite of the

decree granted against her, restraining her from interfering with the

possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent

continued her interference and started threatening to implicate the

petitioners in false SC and ST case. As the 2nd respondent had

wilfully and deliberately violated the injunction orders, as such, the

2nd petitioner filed a private complaint before the Court of I Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem against the 2nd

respondent and her father for the offence under Sections 447, 323,

294(b), 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and the said complaint was Dr.GRR,J

referred to the police on 13.02.2012. The 2nd respondent having come

to know about the private complaint filed by the 2nd petitioner, by

misusing her caste concocted a false story and lodged another

complaint on 01.03.2012. Even as per the contents of the complaint,

no case was made out for the offence under Section 3(i)(iv)(v)(x)(xi)

of the Act. As per the material on record, it could not be said that the

incident took place at a place within public view. A perusal of the

charge-sheet would clearly disclose that no witness came forward to

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

falsify the above said case. There was no prima facie case made

against the petitioners to connect with the alleged offence. Hence,

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners was an abuse of

process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings.

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.

8. The present case was registered on the complaint given by the

2nd respondent on 01.03.2012 at 12.00 hours. As per the complaint,

she was owning an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas in

Sy.No.858/E in the revenue village of Sujathanagar, Mangapeta

Shivar, Kothagudem and the accused persons damaged the crop of

green gram and lentil grown by her and when she obstructed, they Dr.GRR,J

abused her in filthy language in the name of her caste and necked her

out from the land. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet

stating that as per the pahani and physical possession, the land in

Sy.No.858/E to an extent of 20 guntas pertained to the husband of the

complainant by name G.Ramdasu and after his death, the complainant

was enjoying the said land and she had grown up green gram and

lentil crop in the said land. The accused without having any right and

with an intention to occupy the said land trespassed into the said land

and engaged coolies to attend the cooli work in the disputed land on

01.03.2012 stating that the land belonged to them and they cleaned the

waste plants, jawar stumps from the said land and burnt the same and

committed the alleged offence.

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

15.10.2009 to show that the 2nd 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

petition filed by them before the Tahsildar, Kothagudem under

Section 4 of the ROR Act to enter the name of the 2nd petitioner in the Dr.GRR,J

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

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

wherein it was held as under:

2015(2) ALD (Crl.) 150 Dr.GRR,J

"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 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

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

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 offence took place in the agricultural

lands, which was an open place and L.W.2 was cited as an eye witness

to the incident apart from the evidence of the complainant/victim cited

as L.W.1. The agricultural labourers engaged by the petitioners were

also cited as L.Ws.4 to 7. So prima facie, the offence took place

within the public view. As such, the judgment of this Court is not

applicable to the facts of this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the

above case also stated that the Court should be extremely circumspect

in their approach while dealing with the offences under the special

statute such as SC and ST Act. Hence, it is considered not fit to quash

the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage.

14. In the result, this petition is dismissed.