Telangana High Court
Ananthula Purender Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 22 December, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.4115 OF 2019
Between:
1. Ananthula Purender Reddy
2. Smt.Ananthula Bhanodaya
... Petitioners/A1 & A2
And
1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad.
2. Smt.Vemula Devamma
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.12.2023
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. 4115 of 2019
% Dated 22.12.2023
# 1. Ananthula Purender Reddy
# 2. Smt.Ananthula Bhanodaya
... Petitioners/A1 & A2
And
$ 1. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad.
$ 2. Smt.Vemula Devamma
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Parsa Anantha Nageswar Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sudershan,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri Thota Siva Parvathi for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710
2. 2023 Law Suit(SC) 572
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4115 OF 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 & A2 to
quash the proceedings against them in SC.No.39 of 2019 on the
file of Sessions Court for Trial of SC/ST cases, Ranga Reddy
District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 342, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)
and 3 (2)(v) of the SC/STs (POA) Act, 2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State.
3. Briefly, the case of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioners
are the owners of the house where she along with her family
members are staying. On 24.01.2019, when she was attending to
her household works, the petitioners went there and demanded to
vacate the house and humiliated her stating that they belong to
'Madiga' community. Chairs were brought from the house of
another tenant (LW3) and these petitioners sat in-front-of the
house restricting movements of the family members. The Video
C.D. of the alleged acts of the petitioners was also submitted to
the Police while lodging the complaint. The Police having
investigated the case filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that there were six portions in the building of these petitioners.
Since the premises was put up for sale, five of the tenants had
already vacated, except the family of the 2nd respondent. Only for
the reason of asking them to vacate the premises, present false
complaint was filed. The husband of the 2nd respondent filed suit
in OS.No.112 of 2019 on 08.02.2019. Having received the
summon, the 1st petitioner also filed a written statement and the
case was pending adjudication before the Court. Only to put
pressure on the petitioners who are owners of the building, the
complaint was filed.
5. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and
another 1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the
alleged abuses were within the four corners of the building and
there were no public, the offence under SC/STs(POA) Act would
not apply, since the premises is not within public view.
(2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710
6. He also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme
Court in Ramesh Candra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another 2 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that
merely stating that a person has abused, that by itself would not
warrant the accused to face trial when the ingredient of
intentional insult of such a degree that it could provoke a person
to break public peace or commit any other offence, was not made
out.
7. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the 2nd
respondent that LW3 is another tenant from whose house chairs
were brought and the entire incident happened in-front-of the
main door of the 2nd respondent. When the other tenants were
also present, it cannot be said that the place where the incident
had taken place is not a place within public view.
8. Admittedly, the portion was given on rent to the 2nd
respondent. It is not the case that the caste of the 2nd respondent
was not known to the petitioners when the premises was given on
rent. The husband of the 2nd respondent is also a witness in the
case, however, he was not present when the alleged incident had
taken place. He filed a suit against the 1st petitioner seeking
2023 Law Suit(SC) 572
perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner and others from
evicting. The said suit was filed on 08.02.2019. The alleged
incident had taken place on 24.01.2019.
9. The offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
2015 would be made out only when the alleged abuse or insult or
intimidation is with a deliberate intent to humiliate a member of
the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
10. Further, the abuse should have been in the name of caste in
any place within public view.
11. Admittedly, there is a dispute in between the petitioners and
the 2nd respondent regarding vacating the house. Even in the
complaint, it is not stated that for the reason of the petitioners
belonging to SC community, there was any deliberate insult or
intimidation.
12. In the said circumstances, the offence under SC/ST (POA)
Act is not made out. However, the trial Court has to decide
whether the 2nd respondent and her family members' moments
were restricted to attract offence under section 342 IPC. Nowhere,
it is mentioned in the complaint that there was any kind of
physical assault or that the 2nd respondent received any injuries
to attract the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Petition is
partly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners for the
offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act,
2015 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby
quashed.
14. The case file shall be sent back by the Special Sessions
Judge to the committal Magistrate Court to try the offence under
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt.:22.12.2023
tk
