Chakali Hannthu And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 1738 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1738 Tel
Judgement Date : 26 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

Chakali Hannthu And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 26 April, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
              CRIMINAL PETITION No.753 of 2022
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C) to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in

S.C.No.148 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Sessions

Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Mahaboobnagar District registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 324, 447, 427, 504 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act No.1 of 2015) (for short

'the Act').

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto

complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Maddur Police

Station, Narayanpet District against the petitioners stating that

he is having an agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2-35 guntas

in Survey No.161 situated at Nandiphad Village. On

02.07.2021, while he was working on the above said land,

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 criminally trespassed into his land and

damaged his Sorgam Crop, stating that a civil case was pending

SKS,J

between them and the same was posted for hearing on

06.07.2021 and after hearing they will proceed as per the Court

order, until then, you would not enter into the land. Later, on

the same day, the petitioners abused him in the name of his

caste, bet respondent No.2 with hands, and kicked with legs

mercilessly, petitioner No.1 bet respondent No.2 with a stone, as

a result, he received blood injury and went into unconscious

stasge. Thereafter, the village elders said that they would hold a

panchayat, but till today no panchayat was conducted and

justice was not done. Basing on the said complaint, the Police

registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2021 and after completion

of the investigation, they filed the charge sheet before the

learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar District.

3. Heard Sri K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent

No.1-State and Sri L. Harish, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and

baseless. Civil cases are pending between the petitioners and

SKS,J

respondent No.2. The incident as alleged in the complaint did

not taken place and the same is concocted. He further

submitted that registration of Sessions Case based on the

complaint is abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed the Court

to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2

submitted that the petitioners trespassed into the subject land

and threatened respondent No.2 not to enter into the said land.

Village elders advised him to settle the matter but no one came

forward and settle the matter, as such, the delay in filing the

complaint has occurred. He further submitted that the

petitioners came to his house and beat him mercilessly with a

stone, as such, he received blood injury and went into

unconscious stage. He filed the injury certificate to that effect.

Learned counsel further submitted that since there are serious

allegations against the petitioners, quashing of proceedings at

this stage does not arise. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss

the petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the

learned counsel and having gone through the material available

on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the

SKS,J

complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as

alleged by the Police.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as

follows:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."

8. As seen from the record, it is to be noted that there are

civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2. The

prime contention of the petitioners is that the incident, as

alleged in the complaint, was false. Respondent No.2 submitted

that the petitioners trespassed into his land and threatened him

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J

and later, the petitioners went to his house, beat him

mercilessly, with a stone, as such, he received blood injury and

went into unconscious. He filed the injury certificate to that

effect. However, at this stage, it cannot be said that the

petitioners are no way concerned with the allegations