Telangana High Court
Ram Swaroop Agarwal vs State Of Telangana And Another on 20 October, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.1085 OF 2020
Between:
Ram Swaroop Agarwal
... Petitioner
And
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by
its Public Prosecutor,High Court
for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad
...Respondent
2. Avula Naresh
... Respondent/
defacto complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20.10.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 8119 of 2016
% Dated 20.10.2022
# Ram Swaroop Agarwal
... Petitioner
And
$1. The State of Telangana, rep. by
its Public Prosecutor,High Court
for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad
...Respondent
2. Avula Naresh
... Respondent/
defacto complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Venkatesh
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri Praveen Chillara for R2.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2020) 10 SCC 710
2
(2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531
3
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 789
4
2022 SCC Online SC 484
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1085 OF 2020
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in S.C.SPL-Session Case-SC/ST No.42 of 2019 dt.30.09.2019
on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Court for SC/ST Cases at Secunderabad. The petitioner herein is accused
in the said crime. The offences alleged against him are under Section 506
of the Indian Penal code and Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint on 25.03.2017 stating that he
was working as Supervisor of Pranav Group at HSEL (Hyderabad Stock
Exchange Limited) Building, Erramanzil, Hyderabad; that while he was at
the building, three persons entered into the premises. When questioned,
one of them who allegedly was the petitioner, informed that he was the
owner of the building and came to take photographs of the building. The
2nd respondent requested to come back with the company's permission. On
that the petitioner asked the name of the 2nd respondent who informed that
he was 'Naresh Madiga'. Without wearing safety helmets, the petitioner and
two others went inside the building and took photographs. While coming
outside, the petitioner allegedly abused the 2nd respondent stating that
"Madiga Lanjakodukullara meeru ela Panichestharo chustha mee anthu
chustha".
5. On the basis of the complaint, the police investigated the case and
also sought explanation from the petitioner by giving a notice under
Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. In response to the said notice, the petitioner replied
that he is the Director of Hyderabad Securities and Enterprises Limited
(Erstwhile Hyderabad Stock Exchange Limited) and he had rights to
inspect the company's property; and that he along with two others went
inside the building to take photographs of the building to be submitted
before the NCLT where proceedings were pending.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false case is filed
deliberately to intimidate the petitioner from intimating to the NCLT
regarding the violation of its orders dt.22.03.2017. He further states that
the petitioner is a Hindi speaking person and does not know Telugu
language, as such the question of uttering words abusing the 2nd
respondent in the name of caste does not arise. He further submits that the
2nd respondent has mentioned his name as 'Naresh Madiga', where as in
the charge sheet, the police mentioned as "Madiga Mala Lanja Kodukullara
meeretla untaru, ikkada etla untaro chustha", which reflects the bias nature
of the investigation by the Police Officer, since during the investigation it
was found that the 2nd respondent belonged to 'Mala' community.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgments of
Honourable Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand
and another1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to
quash the proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as there were civil
disputes amongst the parties and further held that any insult or
intimidation to a person would not be an offence under the Act unless such
insult or intimation is on account of the victim belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
8. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court
in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2 and in
Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.766
of 2011 and argued that when the utterance of the words is not within the
public view the offence is not attracted.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits
that prima facie case is made out under the provisions of Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, for the
reason of the petitioner abusing the 2nd respondent in the name of his
caste which is punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act.
10. He also relied upon the Judgments rendered by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of
(2020) 10 SCC 710
(2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531
Maharashtra3 and also Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
4 and argued that the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have to be
exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances; and that the present
case does not qualify to be an exceptional case. He further argued that
when there is prima facie case, the Court has to restrain from quashing the
said proceedings.
11. Admittedly, there was a dispute pending before the NCLT and the
NCLT by order dated 22.03.2017, after hearing the parties found that the
demolition of the building could be stopped pending adjudication of the
issue and accordingly granted interim direction to stop demolition of the
building till the next date of hearing which was 05.04.2017. As on the date
of the complaint i.e. 25.03.2017, the orders of the NCLT were in force and
the question of 2nd respondent being present in the said premises
supervising the demolition of the building does not arise. The petitioner
had filed a Company Petition before the NCLT questioning certain violations
and fraudulent acts to gain wrongfully and in the said petition filed by the
petitioner, interim orders not to demolish the building were passed as
stated above.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner went into the building to substantiate
before the NCLT that its orders of not to demolish the building were being
flouted. The petitioner also filed a complaint on 25.03.2017 before the
Panjagutta Police stating that certain persons at the site were violating the
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 789
2022 SCC Online SC 484
orders of the NCLT and requested to take action by enclosing a copy of the
order of NCLT dt.22.03.2017. The Panjagutta Police acknowledged the
complaint of the petitioner. The said acknowledgment number is
U2023057173901242.
13. As seen from the charge sheet there is no mention about the
complaint of the petitioner being investigated inspite of the said complaint
being acknowledged by the Panjagutta Police. The acts of demolition were
in clear violation of the orders of the NCLT and apparently to overcome the
said acts of the demolition which the petitioner would bring to the notice of
the NCLT, as the petitioner had taken photographs and videos of
demolition being undertaken three days after the grant of interim relief by
the NCLT, the present complaint appears to have been filed.
14. As seen from the complaint, the 2nd respondent was totally a stranger
to the petitioner. The petitioner did not even know about the 2nd
respondent or his caste. The very complaint casts a doubt revealing the
caste name without question. According to the charge sheet complainant is
named as Avula Naresh, S/o.Ramaswamy. A caste certificate is also issued
in the name of Avula Naresh. When the 2nd respondent name is Avula
Naresh, there is any amount of suspicion whether the 2nd respondent
stated his name as Naresh Madiga.
15. In the normal course when a person is asked his name, the said
person would reply his name. It is not explained as to why the 2nd
respondent had stated his name as Naresh Madiga when his name is Avula
Naresh. Further the petitioner is not aware that the 2nd respondent belongs
to SC caste and apparently a stranger. An allegation under the said Act
would attract only when the insult or intimidation is for the reason of a
person belonging to schedule caste or schedule tribe. In the background of
the petitioner being present at the scene, violating the orders of the NCLT
on the instructions of his employers, fearing proceedings for contempt, the
present complaint appears to have been filed, to escape the acts of violating
the Court orders and also to intimidate the petitioner who is pursuing the
case in the NCLT against the employers of the 2nd respondent/complainant.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the proceedings
against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in
S.C.SPL-Session Case-SC/ST No.42 of 2019 dt.30.09.2019 on the file of
the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for
SC/ST Cases at Secunderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal petition,
shall stand closed.
________________
K.SURENDER, J
20.10.2022
tk
Note: L.R.Copy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1085 OF 2020
Dt.20.10.2022
tk
