Telangana High Court
Y.Ravindranath Reddy, vs The Public Prosecutor on 10 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINALPETITION No.9671 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 to
quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.87 of 2021, on the file
of learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST-cum-II Additional
District and Sessions Judge at Nalgonda District, for the offences
punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (f) (g) of the SC/STs (POA) Amendment
Act-2015.
2. Heard Sri M.V.S.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1 and Sri J. Ram mohan Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.07.2020 at 12.00
hours respondent No.2 filed complaint stating that the petitioners
were criminally intruded into her Agricultural Lands to an extent of
05.00 acres in Sy.No.540/1/1-1 and threatened her with dire
consequences. As such, she filed a complaint before the Mattampally
Police Station and after completion of investigation charge sheet was
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioner-No.1 Company along with other associated companies has
purchased total land situated at Gurrampode Rehabilitation Centre,
Padaveedu Revenue Village, Mattampally Mandal, Nalgonda District
through registered sale deeds and petitioner No.1-company is in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands. On 20.08.2015,
petitioner No.1-company made an application to Mandal Revenue
Officer for demarcation of boundaries to its lands. But, the Mandal
Revenue Officer is not taking any action on its representation.
Therefore, petitioner No.1-company approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.29433 of 2015 and the same was disposed of keeping it open
for the petitioner therein to submit an application to the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Mattampally Mandal, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District
and if any such application is made within the stipulated period,
appropriate action be taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Mattampally Mandal, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. In view of the
same, Revenue authorities have demarcated the lands and shown the
boundaries.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
during the process of establishing company, petitioner No.1-company
requested the electricity authorities to provide transformers to the
company land and accordingly the authorities while installing the
transformers, respondent No.2 and other persons demanded money
from the petitioner No.1-company, for which, the company disagreed
and said that company will provide job only, as respondent No.2 and
others have not agreed for the same, lodged a false complaint against
the petitioner No.1-company. He further stated that a member of SC
community weaponize the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for
bringing under preview of the stringent penal law a purely civil
dispute between the parties. As such, he prayed the Court to allow the
petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners
and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
parties and material available on record, it appears that there are civil
disputes between the parties. However, the civil disputes are not a
ground to quash the proceedings as there are serious allegations and
victims are claiming that they are adjacent land owners of accused
No.1 and the petitioners are harassing the victims. Further under
Section 3(1) (f) (g) of the Sc/Sts (POA) Amendment Act-2015 are also
registered against accused No.1, therefore, it requires trial.
8. 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:
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
"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."
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra),
this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal
petition shall standclosed.
____________________________
JUSTICE SMT.K.SUJANA
Date:10.06.2024
ssm
