Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 167 (TS)

Pandiri Ramanatham v. State of A. P.

2022-03-09

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

body2022
ORDER : Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Though Sri.K.P.Jagan Reddy, Advocate, is on record representing respondent No.2, the said counsel failed to make his appearance and submit his contentions on behalf of his client. 2. By the material available on record, and upon hearing the learned counsel what could be gathered is that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Achampet. The said complaint was referred to the Police for investigation and report. On that, the Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.1 of 2013 of Amrabad Police Station. 3. Aggrieved by the said registration of case, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused therein, are before this Court. They seek for quashing of the proceedings. 4. Thus, in the light of the above facts, the point that emerged for consideration is : Whether there exists any justifiable ground to invoke the power granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 9 in Crime No.1 of 2013 of P.S. Amrabad, Mahaboobnagar District ? 5. Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that entire dispute is civil in nature and the petitioners tried to resolve the problem by filing a suit, but the respondent No.2 i.e., the de-facto complainant tried to threaten the petitioners by filing a private complaint before the Court and thereby initiated criminal proceedings and thus the petitioners approached this Court to quash those proceedings. 6. The case of respondent No.2, as could be perceived through the contents of the complaint given by him, are that he is the owner of Ac.09-00 gts., of land in Sy.No.219 and Ac.01-20 gts., in Sy.No.245 of Venkateswarlabavi Village, having purchased the said land eighteen years back from the father of Accused Nos.1 to 4 by name Balaswamy. Since the date of purchase he was cultivating the said land and he raised cotton crop. The Accused, who developed ill-intention, on 19-08-2012 colluded with each other and between 03-00 am., and 07-00 am., trespassed into the said land along with a Tractor, which belongs to Accused No.9, and damaged the entire crop and when the witness informed, his wife and daughter rushed to the spot and questioned the accused. The Accused, who developed ill-intention, on 19-08-2012 colluded with each other and between 03-00 am., and 07-00 am., trespassed into the said land along with a Tractor, which belongs to Accused No.9, and damaged the entire crop and when the witness informed, his wife and daughter rushed to the spot and questioned the accused. The accused abused and insulted those persons in the name of their caste, beat them and drove them out of the land. 7. Basing on the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is civil in nature. 8. Learned counsel also submitted that the name of their caste was used as a weapon for implicating the Accused. 9. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings in the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2012 which stood pending on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said suit was filed by the father of petitioner No.1/accused and others against the de-facto complainant i.e., respondent No.2 herein for grant of permanent injunction. The learned counsel also states that ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner No.1 by the said Court. 10. Learned counsel also submits that a counter case is also pending vide Crime No.53 of 2012 of Amrabad Police Station. 11. A perusal of the charge sheet regarding the said crime discloses that it is based on the incident that was said to have occurred on 19.08.2012 at 9-30 a.m. The present incident, as per the contents of the complaint occurred on the same day between 3-00 a.m. and 7-00 am. 12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that which case is genuine and which is falsely laid among those two has to be decided by the Competent Court and therefore, vacating the stay, permission may be accorded for the Police to investigate. 13. On the other hand, submitting that the proceedings of case which attracts the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘SCs and STs Act’, for the sake of convenience and discussion) can also be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.13803 of 2013, dated 18.01.2022 wherein this Court at Paras-11 and 12 held as follows: “11. Contending that when false allegations are made taking advantage of the caste, the Courts are empowered to quash the proceedings and that the Hon’ble Apex Court, based on the similar set of facts, has quashed the proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , wherein their Lordships at paras-22 to 24 held as follows: “22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because respondent No.2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law. 23. This Court in a Judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. held that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under: “9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A charge sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement that the charge sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed.” 24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge sheet to that extent is quashed.” 12. Thus, having regard to the observations made by this Court with regard to the genuineness in the version of the defacto complainant regarding the incident that occurred on 28.04.2013 and abusing the defacto complainant and his wife in the name of their caste and al so based on the decision that is referred to supra, this Court is of the view that the said allegations are false and unsustainable. It appears that taking advantage of the caste, the defacto complainant somehow thought of bringing the petitioners/Accused to his terms. At the same time, having regard to the allegation made that the petitioners herein took the signatures on the blank cheques and Stamp Papers and thereby cheated the defacto complainant and his wife, this Court is of the view that the genuineness in the said allegation could be known only through proper investigation by the police. This Court does not find any justifiable reasons or grounds whatsoever to quash the FIR to the extent of the allegations laid attracting the provisions of Sections 420 and 506 of IPC.” 14. This Court does not find any justifiable reasons or grounds whatsoever to quash the FIR to the extent of the allegations laid attracting the provisions of Sections 420 and 506 of IPC.” 14. In the case on hand, this Court finds that the property in question is claimed by both the parties i.e., the petitioners herein and respondent No.2. Section 3(i)(v) of the SCs and STs Act makes any person, whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water, liable for punishment. Therefore, the said provision does not attract to the facts on hand. 15. The above observation is made in the light of the pendency of the civil suit before the Competent Court regarding the same subject matter. As far as other offences attracting the provisions of Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is for the Police to investigate and decide whether a case is made out or not. Therefore, this Court considers it desirable to allow this Criminal Petition in part. 16. Resultantly, this Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2013 of Amrabad Police Station as far as the registration of case regarding the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are hereby quashed. The Station House Officer, Amrabad Police Station, is directed to investigate the case and submit his report either in the form of charge sheet or final report before the Court concerned within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.