Rondla Bhoopathi Reddy And ... vs State Telangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1660 Tel

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 3634 of 2022 and 1965 of 2021


COMMON ORDER:
1.     The petitioners/A1 and A2 in Criminal Petition No.3634

of 2022 are questioning the proceedings against them in SC.

Spl.No.58 of 2022 pending on the file of Special Judge for

Trial of Cases under SCs & STs Act-cum-III Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Karimnagar on the basis of the complaint

of the 2nd respondent/Smt.Thummala Sushila.

2. The petitioners/A1 to A3 in Criminal Petition No.1965 of

2021 are questioning the proceedings against them in SC.

Spl.No.76 of 2022 pending on the file of Special Judge for

Trial of Cases under SCs & STs Act-cum-III Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Karimnagar on the basis of the complaint

of the 2nd respondent/Smt.Thummala Sushila

3. Since the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are one and

the same, both the Criminal Petitions are heard together and

disposed off by way of this Common Order.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners in

both the cases have purchased an extent of land from one

Mahesh, who is the sister's son of the 2nd respondent/defacto

complainant. Two charge sheets are filed on the basis of two

different complaints with similar allegations.

5. In Criminal Petition No.3634 of 2022, the FIR was

registered on 28.08.2020 alleging that at about 8.30 or 9.00

a.m while the 2nd respondent and her daughter were in their

land in Sy.No.560/E in Repaka village, the petitioners have

trespassed and abused in abusive language attracting penal

consequences under SCST Act. The said complaint was

registered as FIR No.25 of 2021, dated 25.01.2021 for the

offences under Sections 294(b), 447, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

and Sections 3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment

Act 2015.

6. In Criminal Petition No.1965 of 2021, the complaint was

filed on 25.01.2021 with the Police Station, Ellanthakunta,

Rajanna Sirisilla District stating that the 2nd respondent was

cultivating the land in Sy.No.560/E in Repaka village. On

20.01.2021 when they were in the land, the petitioners

allegedly trespassed and attacked the defacto complainant

and she was dragged by pulling her hair and abused in a

language attracting penal consequences under SCs & STs

Act. The said complaint was registered as FIR No.25 of 2021,

dated 25.01.2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 447,

323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(va) of

SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act 2015. The land issue was

pending litigation in O.S.No.210 of 2012 on the file of Junior

Civil Judge, Sirisilla.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that civil dispute was already pending regarding the

partition and land was sold by one Mahesh who is the sister's

son of the 2nd respondent/Thummala Sushila. There are

series of complaints made by the 2nd respondent herein only

to intimidate the petitioners and restrain them from claiming

their right in the land. The petitioners have purchased the

land under registered sale deed and in spite of the same, the

2nd respondent has been filing one complaint or the other. The

said complaints are nothing but taking advantage of her caste

and falsely implicating the petitioners. Learned counsel

further submits that in fact the petitioners have also lodged

complaint against the 2nd respondent and others for illegal

trespass of land and damaging the paddy raised by the

petitioner.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner in

both the cases had filed W.P.No.36642 of 2018, wherein the

husband of the 2nd respondent is a party for compensation of

0.18 guntas which was acquired for the purpose of

Ananthagiri canal. However, neither the husband of the 2nd

respondent nor any one has appeared for claiming the

compensation which would reflect that the claim of the 2nd

respondent is false. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the

police have registered both the cases, even without verifying

whether the land belongs to the petitioners or not. In the

absence of the 2nd respondent showing proof, the registration

of crime itself is bad in law. For the said reason, the

proceedings have to be quashed. Learned counsel relied on

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh

Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another [(2020) 10

Supreme Court Cases 710].

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent would submit that prima facie the allegations

made in the complaint constitute an offence alleged both

under IPC and also under the SCs & STs (POA) Act. The

petitioners have only remedy before the trial court and

proceedings cannot be quashed.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in three Judge Bench in

Hitesh Verma's case (supra) held at paragraph 16 as follows:

"16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent 2 herself. Due to dispute the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of the property pending before the civil court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe."

In the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that the charge under Section 3(1)(r) of the SCs & STs (POA)

Act cannot be made out and accordingly quashed the

proceedings.

11. In the present case, admittedly, the land was purchased

by the petitioners from one Mahesh. There are disputes in the

family and also civil suit is still pending. The police in both

the cases have neither shown as to how the 2nd respondent is

claiming said land nor any documents filed. Though the civil

suit is pending, it cannot be said in the back ground of the

petitioners purchasing the property that they do not have any

rights over the property. On the other hand, the 2nd

respondent except claiming part in the ancestral property, no

other evidence is placed even to show that in the land

purchased by these petitioners, 2nd respondent has a right.

12. It cannot be said that deliberately, the petitioners have

either abused or allegedly assaulted the 2nd respondent for

the reason of her belonging to Scheduled Caste. The

necessary ingredients to attract the offence are that acts

committed by a person should have been for the reason of the

victim belonging to a scheduled caste.

13. In the present circumstances and in the back ground of

the disputes pending since long, the offence under Sections

3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(va) of the Act, 447 IPC are hereby quashed.

However, the petitioners are liable to be proceeded with for

the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

14. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed in

part. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.04.2023.

kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Petition Nos.3634 of 2022 and 1965 of 2021

Date:18.04.2023

kvs