Telangana High Court

Ravinder Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 12 April, 2023

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.25 of 2023

ORDER :

This revision case is filed against the orders in

Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2021, in S.C.No.8 of 2019, dated 11.10.2022

on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC & ST

(POA) Act-Cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Warangal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 1st respondent

and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing

for the 2nd respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that initially a private

complaint has been filed by the defacto complainant alleging

that on 09.05.2016 at about 9:30 a.m. while he was attending

plumbing work, in Sy.Nos.138, 139, 140, 141 and 142 situated

at Mattewada Village, Hasanarthy Mandal, Warangal belonging

to one Polam Anil Reddy, one Ravinder Reddy i.e., the

petitioner went there and enquired with the complainant as to

what he was doing there and stated that "ee jaga vanidi kadu

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023

naadi". In the meanwhile, Polam Anil Reddy went there and

showed the petitioner an ad-interim injunction order passed in

I.A.No.2306 of 2015, in O.S.No.1275 of 2015. On that, the

petitioner got angry, abused the complainant saying that "Are

madiga lanja koduka ee jagala inkokkasari adugu pedithe nee

kallu erraggodutha lanja koduka" and also abused Polam Anil

Reddy in filthy language and threatened to kill him. The said

complaint was referred to the Station House Officer,

Hasanparthy Police Station who registered a case, in Crime

No.202 of 2016 against the petitioner. After investigation, a

charge sheet was laid against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 509, 506 of IC and Section 3(x) (vii)

of SC/ST (POA) Act.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2021 under Section

227 of Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him from the charges

leveled against him, but the trial Court dismissed the said

petition with a finding, that at this stage the defence taken by the

accused and the material relied upon by him cannot be

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023

considered. Further, the finding of the trial Court is that the

orders passed in the civil case and the proceedings before the

revenue authorities cannot be considered in deciding the

petition. The petitioner specifically contended that on the date

of alleged incident he did not go to the disputed land and

undisputedly on that day, he was in the station.

5. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there is a long gap of three months in preferring

the complaint by the complainant. Even as per the private

complaint, the alleged incident took place on 09.05.2016 and on

that day, the complainant has not preferred any report to the

Police and the said private complaint was referred to Police on

24.09.2010 which clearly disclose that a false complaint has

been lodged against the petitioner and it is a fit case to set aside

the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 and prayed to allow the

revision petition..

6. On the other hand, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor vehemently opposed to set aside the orders of the

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023

trial Court. It is the specific contention of the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor that the trial Court cannot go into the merits of

the case at the time of discharge and it is a matter of fact to be

adduced at the time of trial.

7. On perusal of the record, it is evident that FIR has been

registered, basing on the case being forwarded by the learned

Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.p.C. The First

Information Report itself discloses that they received private

complaint copy from the Court and basing on it, a case was

registered in Crime No.202 of 2016 dated 24.09.2016 against the

revision petitioner.

8. As per the contents of FIR, it is evident that the incident

took place on 09.05.2016 at about 9:30 a.m. The complaint was

filed by one Doma Raju/complainant who was working as a

plumber in the lands of Polam Anil Reddy alleging that he was

abused by the revision petitioner in filthy language that too in

the name of his caste. The complaint copy also reveal that

Polam Anil Reddy who is the owner of the land has shown the

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023

ad-interim injunction to the petitioner granted vide

I.A.No.2306/2015 in O.S.No.1275/2015 by V Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Warangal for which, the accused/petitioner got

angry and abused the complainant in filthy language in the name

of his caste and also abused Polam Anil Reddy in filthy

language.

9. The complaint copy disclose that it has been filed on

24.09.2016 though the incident took place on 09.05.2016.

Furthermore, the complaint copy is very much silent as to what

prevented the petitioner, for three months in preferring the

complaint. It is also relevant to mention that on the date of

incident, it is not only the complainant who was present on the

spot but one Polam Anil Reddy was also present and he was also

been abused by the revision petitioner. Further, it is not

explained by the prosecution as to what made Polam Anil Reddy

not to prefer any complaint against the petitioner being the

owner of the land if at all the petitioner has abused them. It is

also specific plea that P.Anil Reddy obtained ad-interim

injunction against the suit schedule property vide I.A.No.2306

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023

of 2015 in O.S.No.1275 of 2015, on the file of V Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, which clearly reveals that there

are civil disputes between said Anil Reddy and the petitioner

herein.

10. At this juncture, it is necessary to go through the

precedents of the Apex Court judgment reported in Central

Bureau of Investigation vs. Maninder Singh.1. In the said case,

a quash petition has been filed to quash the proceedings which

were initiated against the petitioner, wherein the Apex Court has

come to a conclusion that when a suit and the First Appeal are

pending on the subject matter, and when the issue is with regard

to ownership of the land which is yet to be finalized in the said

suit or in the First Appeal, the criminal complaint between the

parties need to be scrutinized meticulously. It is also been

observed by the Apex Court that the observations cannot be

passed adversely effecting any of the parties in pending civil

litigation. Therefore, High Courts ought to have considered

AIR 2015 SC 3656

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023

certain facts placed before the Court and ought to have quashed

it.

11. May be it is a question of quash petition, but in the present

case also there are civil disputes between the parties and there is

every chance of implicating the petitioner falsely in criminal

case in order to satisfy their egos and when a matter appears to

be purely civil in nature, the trial Court ought not have referred

the matter under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. against the

petitioner. Moreover, the private complaint was filed after a gap

of three months after the incident.

12. In G.Sagar Suri And Another vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh2, it is held as follows:-

"It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction- under this

2002 (2) SCC 636

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.25 of 2023

Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

13. As per the above proposition, it is for the Court to see

what was the genesis of the crime? and if it has arisen, whether it

amounts to criminal offence or not? In the present case, the

genesis of the complaint is that there are civil disputes between

P.Anil Reddy and Ravinder Reddy and that the complainant

preferred a complaint against Ravinder Reddy/revision petitioner

after a lapse of three months.

14. Admittedly, suit is filed in the year, 2015. Subsequent to

filing of the suit, present FIR has come out of the result of the

case being referred under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the

learned Magistrate.

15. Considering the rival contentions of either parties and