Kashetti Kistaiah And 3 Others vs The State Of Ap., Rep By Its P.P And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3895 Tel

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

            CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2540 of 2014
ORDER:

1) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for

quashing proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in Crime

No.2 of 2014 of Kamanpur, Police Station, Nalgonda District

registered for the offences under Sections. 504, 506 read with

Section 148 IPC and Sections 3(1)(iv)(v) of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(for short "the Act).

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for

the second respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

respondent-State. Perused the material on record.

3) The second respondent lodged a private complaint before the

Judicial Magistrate of Class, Manthani alleging that he purchased

agricultural land in survey No.212/D admeasuring Ac.0.13 guntas

situated at Rathnapur Village through registered sale deed

dated 31.08.2012 from its owner by name one Kashetti Thirupathi.

During the month of February, 2013, A-1 to A-4 tried to interfere 2 ASR,J crlp_2540_2014

into the possession of the second respondent, he filed O.S.No.6 of

2013 for perpetual Injunction on the file of Junior Civil Judge's

Court, Manthani and obtained ad-interim injunction orders against

A-1 and A-2. It is alleged that on 01.08.2013, A-1 and A-2

illegally trespassed into the land and planted cotton seeds and when

the second respondent resisted them, they abused in filthy

language. When he approached the Tahsildar and Kamanpur

police and complained about the same. The police called A-1 and

A-2 and instructed them not to interfere into the possession of the

second respondent and also gave an undertaking to the police. A-1

and A-2 continued threat and harassing the complainant with dire

consequences to leave the land and A-3 and A-4 are instigating

them. On 15.09.2013 all the accused persons came to the land of

the second respondent, trespassed into the same for watering the

cotton crop and immediately, the second respondent rushed to the

spot along with others and stopped the accused from their illegal

acts. On 15.09.2013 at about 1.30 am the second respondent went

to the police station and lodged complaint, since the police failed to

take action, again the present complaint was filed before the 3 ASR,J crlp_2540_2014

concerned Magistrate and the same was referred to the Station

House Officer, P.S.Kamanpur and thereafter, a case in crime No.2

of 2014 was registered against A-1 to A-4 for the aforesaid

offences. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is

filed.

4) During the pendency of proceedings, learned counsel for the

petitioners informed to the Court that A-1 and A-2 died and filed

death certificates to that effect. As such, the case against A-1 and

A-2 stands abated.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that A-2 is

brother of A-1. A-2 is the absolute owner of land in sy.No.212/D

admeasuring Ac.0-13 guntas inherited from his ancestors and patta

and ROR passbooks and title deeds have also been issued in his

favour. He further submits that the second respondent in collusion

with Kasetti Thirupathi created false documents and

misrepresenting the facts got his name mutated in the records and

got himself issued pattadar passbook and title deeds in respect of

the subject land . On knowing about the same, A-2 filed appeal

before the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Manthani for 4 ASR,J crlp_2540_2014

cancellation of ROR passbooks and title deeds. Learned counsel

further submits that the second respondent filed O.S.No.6 of 2013

on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Manthani for perpetual

Injunction and obtained injunction order against A-1 and A-2.

The allegations of the complaint did not satisfy the ingredients of

the alleged offences and they are absurd and inherently

improbable. Learned counsel further submits that continuation of

prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law

and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of

Ramawatar v.State of Madhya Pradesh1, Hitesh Verma v.State

of Uttarakhand2, Ravella Padmavathi v.Telangana3, xxx v.State

of Kerala4 and M.Karthiga Priyadarshini v.State.5

7) Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the

allegations of the complaint prima facie make out cognizable

1 2021 SCC online SC 966 2 (2020)10 SCC 710

4 (2020) 18 SCC 763 5 2021-1-LW(Crl)598 5 ASR,J crlp_2540_2014

offence and, therefore, petition may be dismissed and permit the

investigating agency to complete the investigation.

8) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and

submits that the allegations, prima facie, make out alleged offence

and prayed to dismiss the petition.

9) A perusal of the allegations of the complaint discloses that the

second respondent alleged to have purchased agricultural land in

survey No.212/D admeasuring Ac.0-13 guntas under registered

sale deed, dated 31.08.2012 from its owner by name Kashetti

Thirupathi. The second respondent also filed O.S.No.6 of 2013 for

Perpetual Injunction on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Manthani and obtained injunction orders against A-1 and A-2. It is

also alleged that on 01.08.2013 A-1 and A-2 illegally trespassed

into his land and tried to interfere into his possession, when he

resisted, they abused him in filthy language. When he informed

the same to the police, the police called A-1 and A-2 instructed

them not to interfere with the possession of the second respondent.

It is stated that A-3 and A-4 are politically influential persons and

they are instigating A-1 and A-2 in threatening and harassing the 6 ASR,J crlp_2540_2014

second respondent. It is further stated that on 15.09.2013 A-1 to

A-4 came to the land of the second respondent and trespassed into

the same for watering the cotton crop. Then the second respondent

went to the subject land and tried to stop the accused persons from

their illegal acts and they tried to attack him.

10) Besides other sections, the offences alleged under the Act are

Sections 3 (1) (iv) (v) of the Act, which are substituted by Act 1 of

2016 w.e.f. 26.01.2016. The substituted corresponding provision is

3(1) (f) (g) of the Act, which reads as under:

(f) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land, owned by, or in the possession of or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member, of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, or gets such land transferred.

(g) wrongfully dispossess a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights, including forest rights, over any land or premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or takes away the produce therefrom.

11) The basic ingredients of offence under Sections 3 (1) (iv)(v)

of the Act (substituted by Act 1 of 2016 and corresponding

provision is 3(1) (f) (g) of the Act) would indicate punishment for

offences against a person who wrongfully occupies or cultivates 7 ASR,J crlp_2540_2014

the land owned or possessed by a member of Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe and against a person who wrongfully dispossesses

a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land

or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights or

destroys the crop or takes away the produce therefrom. The main

object of the Act is to improve socio-economic conditions of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, as they are denied

number of civil rights.

12) Coming to the present case, the main allegations are against

A-1 and A-2. It appears that O.S.No.6 of 2013 was filed by the

second respondent against A-1 and A-2 and obtained injunction

orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that originally

Kasetti Thirupathi was owner of Sy.No.212/D admeasuring

Ac.0-13 guntas and after his demise, A-2 inherited the same and he

was granted pattadar passbook. So there is dispute about the

ownership and possession of the subject land, which is the subject

matter of civil dispute between the second respondent and A-1 and

A-2.

                                  8                             ASR,J
                                                      crlp_2540_2014

13) It is also alleged that on 01.08.2013 A-1 and A-2 illegally

trespassed into the subject land and planted cotton seeds and the

second respondent resisted them and also lodged a complaint to the

police. Since the civil suit was pending before the Court regarding

possession of the property and filed a suit for perpetual Injunction,

the aforesaid acts of A-1 and A-2 do not constitute an offence

under the Act and unless the land of the second respondent has

been illegally occupied or cultivated or he has been dispossessed

from the land. Apart from this, there is no allegation in the

complaint that he was not allowed to cultivate the subject land or

the accused tried to wrongfully occupy the land or tried to

dispossess him. Further, it is alleged that on 15.09.2013 A-1 to

A-4 went to the land of the second respondent and trespassed into

the same for watering the cotton crop. In fact, the second

respondent was not present at that time and he himself stated that

he rushed to the spot and stopped the accused persons. It is not his

case that he was wrongfully dispossessed or the accused tried to

occupy his land.

                                   9                              ASR,J
                                                        crlp_2540_2014

14) The allegations of the complaint, prima facie, do not satisfy

any of the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1) (iv) (v) of

the Act. It appears that the allegations made in the complaint even

if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do

not prima facie constitute any of the alleged offences or make out

any case against the accused. Moreover, having regard to the fact

that civil litigation is pending between the second respondent and

petitioners/A-1 and A-2 about ownership of the schedule property

and the vendor of second respondent's title even questioned by A-2

by filing appeal before the R.D.O. and when there is dispute about

the possession and title of the land and the subject matter is

pending before the revenue Courts and civil Courts, any alleged

dispute arising on account of title and possession of the said

property would not attract an offence under sections 3 (1) (iv) (v)

of the Act.

15) Similarly I find that the ingredients of Sections.504 and 506

read with Section 148 IPC are also absent in the allegations of the

complaint. It is not specifically mentioned in the complaint as to 10 ASR,J crlp_2540_2014

who has intimidated and how the second respondent was

threatened by the accused.

16) For the foregoing reasons, after considering the submissions

of counsel for both the parties and considering the allegations of

the complaint and perusing the material on record, I am of the view

that the allegations of the complaint do not prima facie, constitute

any offence or make out case against the accused. Therefore,

continuation of proceedings against petitioners would be an abuse

of process of law and ends of justice requires that proceeding out to

be quashed.

17) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The

proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.2 of 2014 of

Kamanpur Police Station, Karimnagar District, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

                                         ______________________
                                         A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

27.07.2022
Nvl
 11            ASR,J
     crlp_2540_2014