Telangana High Court
Nannapaneni Sridhar vs The State Of Telangana on 26 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1524 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petitions is filedunder Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
S.C.No.399 of 2022 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial
of cases offences under SC and ST Act-Cum-VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District Court at
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/STs (POA) Act (for
short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
requested accused Nos.1 and 2 to reduce the monthly rental
amount of the shop from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.25,000/- as he
suffered losses in his business due to Covid-19 pandemic.
However, accused Nos.1 and 2 besides refusing to reduce the
monthly rental amount of the shop, asked respondent No.2 to
vacate the shop if he is unable to pay the agreed monthly rental
amount. It is stated that on 06.04.2022 when respondent No.2
went to the shop, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him in filthy
SKS,J
language. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No.458 of
2022 before the KPHB Police and after completion of
investigation, a charge sheet was filed vide S.C.No.399 of 2022
on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases offences
under SC and ST Act-Cum-VII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District Court at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri K.Sunil Goud, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of P.Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
accused Nos.1 and 2 are no way concerned with the alleged
offences as respondent No.2 filed complaint only to avoid
vacating the shop. He further submitted that there is a civil suit
pending before the Civil Court and in support of his
submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others 1, Mitesh Kumar J.Sha vs. State of Karnataka and
others 2 and Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarkhand and
1 MANU/SC/7983/2008
(2022) 14 SCC 572
SKS,J
another 3. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal
Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.1-State that opposed the submissions of
learned counsel for the petitioners stating that there are serious
allegations against the petitioners and prayed the Court to
dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the learned
counsel, this Court has perused the material available on
record. Admittedly, respondent No.2 obtained status-quo order
in I.A.No.469 of 2020 in O.S.No.505 of 2020 and the said Civil
Suit is pending before the Civil Court. The allegation against the
petitioners is that they not only interfered the peaceful
possession of respondent No.2 but also humiliated him by
abusing him in the name of caste. It is pertinent to note that to
quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court
has to see whether the averments in the 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.
3 (2020) 10 SCC 710
SKS,J
Surendra Kori 4, 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. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Surendra Kori (supra), since there
are serious allegations against petitioner No.1/accused No.1
which requires trial and the allegation against petitioner No.2 is
that she thrown garbage in front of the shop which is trivial in
nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 are liable to
be quashed and the proceedings against petitioner
No.1/accused No.1 shall be continued.
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and
the proceedings against petitioner No.2/accused No.2 in
S.C.No.399 of 2022 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial
of cases offences under SC and ST Act-Cum-VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District Court at
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed and the proceedings
against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in S.C.No.399 of 2022 on
the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases offences
under SC and ST Act-Cum-VII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District Court at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad,
shall be continued.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 26.07.2024
gms
