Muktha Rajeshwar Rajesh vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 756 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1433 OF 2023

ORDER:

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 Special S.C.No.161 of 2022 pending on the

file of Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act Cases and II

Additional District and Sessions Judge at Adilabad, against the

petitioners. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the

said crime. The offences alleged against them are under Sections

294(B), 427 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections

3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

3. The 2nd respondent - de facto complainant filed a complaint

stating that on 20.07.2022 while he was in the office room of

Krishnaveni Talent School, the petitioners came there and called him

out from office room to talk with him. The Aaya was asked to

arrange the chairs to sit. Then, these petitioners asked the 2nd

respondent to provide original panchanama copies relating to the

land in Sy.No.88 to the extent of 800 yards. On refusal to give

panchanama, both the petitioners abused 2nd respondent in the name

of caste stating that "lanjakoduka peparlu enduku ivvavura? Ninnu

champestam, madiga lanjakoduka". While the 2nd respondent was

recording the said acts of petitioners in his mobile phone, accused

No.2 snatched the mobile phone of 2nd respondent and hit it to the

wall causing damage. Meanwhile, Aaya called another teacher by

name Raj Kumar and on seeing the arrival of said teacher, the

petitioners ran away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there

are civil disputes pending in between the petitioners and 2nd

respondent, for which reason, false complaint is filed by the 2nd

respondent. Further, the incident that has taken place is within a

room, as such it is not in public view. When the said incident had

occurred in a room, the provisions of SC/ST Act will not attract.

Further, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 and also in Hitesh

Varma v. State of Uttarakhand and another2. He argued that in case

of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon'ble Supreme

AIR 2021 Supreme Court 5228

(2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710

Court had entertained compromise to quash the case and in case of

Hitesh Varma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court distinguished from "place in public view" from "public

place".

5. There is no dispute with respect to the judgments cited by the

learned counsel for the petitioners. In Ramawatar's case, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an application made by the

parties to compromise after conviction was recorded. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court having found that the parties have compromised and

accordingly, quashed the proceedings. The said facts are not

applicable to the present facts of the case. In Hitesh Varma's case, it

was held that in the event of public being in private places or closed

places, it would amount to "place in public view". In the present

case also, the incident happened in the presence of Aaya of school.

In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that it does not come

within the definition of a "place in public view".

6. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand

closed.

_________________ K. SURENDER, J Date: 13.02.2023 rev