Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 618 (AP)

M. Doraswamy Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-06-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : This writ petition is filed calling for the records relating to issuance of FIR No.48 of 2016, dated 05.09.2016 from the file of the SHO, Vedurukuppam P.S. (R4) and after perusal of the same, quash the impugned FIR dated 05.09.2016 by declaring it as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners of the landed property of total extent of Ac 3.72 cents i.e., extent Ac.1.52 cents in Sy.No.209/2, Ac 1.23 cents in Sy.No.277/5 and Ac 0.97 cents in Sy.No.277/17 situated in Mambedu Village, Accounts, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. The said lands along with certain other lands of the petitioners, total extent Ac 6.64 cents were leased out in favour of one Sri P.Adinarayana, S/o Mukundaiah for agricultural purpose. It is stated that the 6th respondent herein filed a suit in O.S No.190 of 2008 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners in respect of an extent of Ac 3.72 cents of land in Sy.Nos.209/2, 277/5 and 27/7 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2016. It is further stated that, with an intention to harass the petitions, the 6th respondent filed a false complaint and got it referred to the police under Section 156 Cr.P.C for registration and the same was registered by Vedurukuppam PS as Crime No.26 of 2008 for the offence under Section 506 IPC. After completion of trial, the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur has acquitted the petitioners herein holding them not guilty of the said offence. The said judgment also attained finality. While the things stood thus, in spite of dismissal of suit O.S No.190 of 2008, the 6th respondent has been interfering with the petitioners on and off and threatening the petitioners to implicate in false criminal cases under the provisions of SCs/STs (POA) Act. Due to apprehension of harassment by the police, at the instance of the 6th respondent, the petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed a detailed petition before the 2nd respondent on 15.07.2016. Apprehending further harassment by the police, the petitioners have filed WP No.28248 of 2016 before this Court. Due to apprehension of harassment by the police, at the instance of the 6th respondent, the petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed a detailed petition before the 2nd respondent on 15.07.2016. Apprehending further harassment by the police, the petitioners have filed WP No.28248 of 2016 before this Court. On knowing the same, the 3rd respondent was anguished with the petitioners and appears to have advised the 6th respondent herein to give a complaint against the members of the petitioners herein. Taking the support of the 3rd respondent the 6th respondent gave a false complaint anti dated 17.6.2016 to the 4th respondent. Accordingly, basing on the anti dated complaint of the 6th respondent, the 4th respondent registered a crime in FIR No.48 of 2016 dated 5.9.2016 under Section 3(1)(f) of SC/ST POA Amendment Act 2015 against the petitioners and M.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, who left India for Netherland on 29.05.2016 and working there since then. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. This Court vide order dated, 19.09.2016 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim say as prayed for. 4. Heard Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel representing Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that, as apprehended by the petitioners No.1 and 2 in WP No.28248 of 2016, the 3rd respondent who has been supporting the 6th respondent herein, for extraneous considerations, got registered the impugned FIR dated 5.9.2016 on the basis of the alleged offence took place on 17.06.2016 not only with an intention to harass the petitioners but also to frustrate the relief sought for by the petitioners in WP No.28248 of 2016. He further submits that the manner and method adopted by the Police authorities, more particularly, the 3rd respondent herein, is high handed, arbitrary and illegal. He further contended that if this Hon’ble Court pleased to call for the relevant records from the file of 4th respondent. Learned counsel mainly contended that even as per the contents of the impugned FIR, there was civil litigation between the petitioners and the 6th respondent with regard to landed property. He further contended that if this Hon’ble Court pleased to call for the relevant records from the file of 4th respondent. Learned counsel mainly contended that even as per the contents of the impugned FIR, there was civil litigation between the petitioners and the 6th respondent with regard to landed property. On an earlier occasion, the tenant of the petitioners of the subject land, Sri P.Adinarayana, who is made as Accused No.5 in the impugned Crime dated 5.9.2016 filed a suit OS No.19 of 2008 against the 6th respondent seeking permanent injunction and the trial Court has granted temporary injunction as well as police aid in favour of the said Sri P.Adinarayana in respect of the subject lands. Since the police have not provided aid to the said Adinarayana, he approached this Court vide WP No.1270 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 29.02.2012 has directed the respondents No.2 to 4 herein to provide police aid to him. The petitioners are advised to state that when the matter is sub-judice, the Government Agencies/ Authorities, more particularly the police authorities, cannot prejudice the rights of the petitions, by over reaching the notice issued by this Court. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by declaring the action of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary and illegal. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents contended that the 6th respondent lodged a complaint with the 4th respondent against the petitioners No.1 and 2 herein. Basing on the said complaint the respondent registered a case and investigation has been taken up by the 3rd respondent. During the course of investigation, four (4) witnesses have been examined and recorded their statements. Later, the Investigating Officer addressed a letter dated 15.9.2016 to the Sub Registrar, Karvetinagar requesting to peruse the copy of document No.1035/2014 dated 19.08.2004 submitted by the complainant and furnish the report for the purpose of further investigation. In turn, the Joint Sub Registrar, K Nagar issued reply vide Lr.No.Cr.No.48/2016 dated 17.09.2016 stating that the document No.1035/2014 registerd in the office and the same is genuine. He further submits that the Investigating Officer sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, K.Nagar and Tirupati Urban Mandals requesting to issue Caste certificates of the complainant as well as accused persons. In turn, the Tahsildar issued Caste certificate of the complainant as he belongs to “SC Madiga”. He further submits that the Investigating Officer sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, K.Nagar and Tirupati Urban Mandals requesting to issue Caste certificates of the complainant as well as accused persons. In turn, the Tahsildar issued Caste certificate of the complainant as he belongs to “SC Madiga”. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that all the contentions made by the petitioners are baseless and totally incorrect. The present petition has been filed only to drag on the matter and to escape from the criminal liabilities of the above case. Instead of cooperating with the investigating agency the petitioners filed the present writ petition to divert the attention of the investigating agency. Therefore the prayer of the petitioners to quash the above FIR is not just and proper and there are no grounds to quash the same. 7. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the 3rd respondent is making hectic search for the petitions, to arrest them, knowing fully well that, the contents of the so called complaint of the 6th respondent are not only false and baseless but also invented only for the purpose of harassing the petitioners. As seen from the complaint, there are no specific allegations in the complaint how the 6threspondent was abused by the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. (x) As per Section 3(i)(x) of the above Act, corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose of which it is ordinarily used; 8. On perusing the complaint of the 6th respondent, it is observed that, there are no specific allegations with regard to caste. It clearly shows that the ingredients of the above section was not mentioned anywhere that the petitioners abused the 6th respondent with caste. 9. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 9. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The SC/ST Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper- castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the SC/ST Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 10. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily civil or private where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. 11. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court found that the registration of the FIR No.48/2016 on the file of 4th respondent for the offences under Sections 3(1)(f) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this court deems fit to allow the present writ petition while declaring the said FIR No.48/2016 on the file of the 4th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.48 of 2016 on the file of SHO, Vedurukupam P.S.-4th respondent, is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.