Telangana High Court
Shivarathri Swamy vs The State Of Telangana on 29 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4541 OF 2025
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking
the Court to quash the proceedings against him in SPL.S.C.No.222 of
2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs
(POA) Act, 1989-cum-II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The
offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 296(b), 351
(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and under
Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant-2nd respondent,
a member of the Yerukala community, reported that he purchased
20 guntas of land from Palvancha Devanna prior to 2002. However,
his adjacent landowner, Shivarathri Swamy-petitioner herein, has
been trying to occupy his land for a long time. On 26.09.2024, at
2:00 pm, while the complainant was surveying his land with the
Mandal Tahsildar and their staff, Shivarathri Swamy came and
abused him in filthy language, in the name of his caste keeping the
land disputes in mind. It is also alleged that petitioner threatened
the complainant to kill him. The complainant claimed that the
accused's behavior caused him fear, leading to a delay in reporting
the matter. As such, requested that necessary action be taken
against the petitioner according to the law. Basing on the said
complaint, case was registered against the petitioner for the said
offences.
3. Heard Sri Dasi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and Sri
D.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
police should not have registered a crime against the petitioner.
During the investigation, the Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar,
who was present during the alleged incident, was examined by the
police but did not support the prosecution's case. The official staff
member of the Tahsildar, examined as LW7, also did not corroborate
the alleged incident. He further contended that the alleged incident
did not occur as alleged by the 2nd respondent and that the
witnesses, LW2 and LW3, have civil disputes with the petitioner. The
other witnesses are allegedly yes-men of LWs.2 and 3. The petitioner
accuses the 2nd respondent of taking advantage of their caste to file
complaints against the petitioner and color civil disputes as criminal
cases to wreck vengeance.
5. Learned counsel further contended that there is no
explanation why the 2nd respondent did not report the alleged
incident to the police on the same day itself, that the complaint was
filed as a counterblast to the civil litigation pending between the
parties. The petitioner filed records showing that a civil suit in
O.S.No.226 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet is
pending between the petitioner and LW2 regarding the subject land.
It is further argued that the investigation officer examined all
witnesses on the same day, and they are interested witnesses. The
investigation officer failed to collect documentary evidence to prove
the 2nd respondent's possession of the alleged land.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Paramjeet Batra Vs State of Uttarakhand and others 1 . The
relevant paras read as under :]
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used
sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether
a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the
nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of
criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High
Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a
criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute
1 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673
which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in
fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should
not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the court.
13. As we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially about
the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The pending civil
suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation that forged and
fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt
with in the said suit. Respondent 2's attempt to file similar
complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the
present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another
case filed by Respondent 2 against him alleging offence under
Section 406 IPC. Possession of the shop in question has also been
handed over by the appellant to Respondent 2. In such a situation,
in our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal proceedings
would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court was wrong in
holding otherwise."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there
are civil disputes pending between the parties and taking advantage
of his caste, the 2nd respondent filed false case to harass the
petitioner with baseless allegations.
8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
and learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, and contended
that there are serious set of allegations against the petitioner which
would constitute the offences as alleged under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of
SC/ST Act, as the scene of offence was a public place and the
incident took place in presence of several members, which would
relate to abuse in the name of case, followed by threatening the
respondent No.2. Therefore, while advocating that the matter
requires adjudication, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner
cannot be quashed at this stage, and prayed this Court to dismiss
the criminal petition.
9. Having regard to rival submissions, and material placed on
record, it is noted that the main contention of learned counsel for
petitioner is that there are civil disputes pending between the
parties, and a suit in the said regard is also filed before competent
Court, and that the complainant has dragged petitioner in criminal
case, only to settle his civil scores, and proceeded to get a false case
registered against the petitioner. In support of the said contentions,
the learned counsel for petitioner also placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Paramjeet Batra (supra), but this Court observes that the said
judgment refers to offences relating to fabrication of documents and
forgery which can be decided before the civil Court, and in the case
on hand, the offences as alleged against the petitioner are in relation
to abuse of complainant in the name of caste, which has to be
adjudicated before the trial Court. That being so, it is noted that the
said judgment does not come to the aid of petitioner. Therefore, this
Court is of the firm view that there are no merits in this Criminal
Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 29.07.2025
Rds/PT
