Vimalakka Smt Bandaru Vimala vs Nemali Sanju Kumar Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4957 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10472 and 11470 of 2013
COMMON ORDER:
1.     Since the petitioners in both these petitions are

seeking to quash proceedings in PRC No.233 of 2013 on the

file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally,

at Miyapur, they are being heard together and disposed off

by way of this Common Order.


2.    Criminal Petition No.10472 of 2013 is preferred by A5

and Criminal Petition No.11470 of 2013 is preferred by A1

in PRC No.233 of 2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur, in which

charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 324 of

IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.


3.    Briefly,   the   case   of   the   defacto   complainant/1st

respondent is that his father and brothers owned land in

Sy.Nos.9 and 10 of Gayathri Nagar, which was divided into

plots. On 20.02.2013 at 5.15 p.m, when the defacto

complainant, his father, and elder brother and three others

while attending to drainage work in the said plots, the

petitioners herein and others went to the said plots and

abused as "Era Erukala lanjakodukullara kulam thakkuva

naa kodukullara entha dhairyam unte meru maa

bhoomiloki vastharra' and also beat them with hands and

stones, for which reason, the defacto complainant received

grievous injuries on his head and also his father and elder

brother and wife also received head injuries. The Police,

Sanathnagar registered the said crime and after

investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences under

Sections 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA)

Act, 1989.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

a false case is filed against the petitioners for the reason of

civil disputes in between A2 to A4 and the defacto

complainant (A2 to A4 are not parties before this Court).

The said suit was filed as O.S No.110 of 2012 by A2 to A4

against defacto complainant. Defacto complainant's family

in turn filed OS No.942 of 2012 against A2 to A4. Both the

cases are pending adjudication. A2 to A4 filed a complaint

before the Inspector of Police on 15.01.2013 and requested

to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the dispute of the

land. However, to intimidate the petitioners, false complaint

is filed. In support of his contention, he relied on the

judgment of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P1 and held that

when basic ingredients of the offences are lacking, the offence

under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 can be

quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent/defacto complainant submits that at this stage, this

Court cannot verify the correctness or otherwise of the

allegations made in the complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,

as such, the case cannot be quashed.

6. As seen from the evidence on record, admittedly, there

are pending civil disputes in between the complainant's

family and the accused, A2 to A4. On the alleged date of

incident, it is stated that these petitioners along with A2 to

A4 and others trespassed into the land where the defacto

complainant and his family members were working. An

altercation has ensued resulting in injuries to five

witnesses, who are L.Ws.1 to 5 enlisted in the memo of

evidence by the prosecution. The prosecution has further

examined two independent witnesses and also treating

2009 Cri.L.J 350

Doctor. The medical certificates are filed to show that there

are injuries.

7. It is not the case of mere utterances of words attracting

consequences under SCs & STs Act. These petitioners and

others are allegedly trespassed and beaten the defacto

complainant and his family members, who are five in

number. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that

ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted

prima facie. As already stated supra, there are grievous

injuries on five persons. The defence version can be putforth

during trial by cross examining witnesses. Whether the acts

of petitioners are deliberate or not can be decided after

trial.

8. There are no merits in these petitions for quashing the

proceedings at the threshold, accordingly both these

Criminal Petitions are dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.10472 and 11470 of 2013

Date: 28.09.2022.

kvs