Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1555 (TS)

Annapu Reddy Krishna Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-11-18

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No. 227 of 2017 of P.S. Mellacheruvu, Suryapet District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506 , 323 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r) , 3(1)(s) , and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘POA Act’). 2. Pursuant to the order dated 09.06.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioners has sent personal notice to respondent No. 4 by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and filed proof of service vide memo USR No. 18211 of 2017 on 19.06.2017. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No. 4 has received the notice. The notice sent by the Registry has also been served on respondent No. 4. In spite of service of notice, respondent No. 4 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 3. Heard Sri Somi Reddy Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged offence occurred on 21.05.2017 at about 03:00 A.M., and at that time, except for respondent No. 4 and her husband, no one else was present. Respondent No. 4 and her husband have not sustained any injuries. He further submits that, with respect to the very same property referred to in the complaint, civil disputes are pending between the petitioners and the brother-in-law of respondent No. 4, namely Bhukya Chokla. The petitioners have filed suits in O.S.Nos. 8, 9, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of 2017, which are pending before the competent Civil Courts. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint is purely civil, and in order to settle the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the said Bhukya Chokla, respondent No. 4, at his instance, has lodged the present complaint. 5. 8, 9, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of 2017, which are pending before the competent Civil Courts. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint is purely civil, and in order to settle the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the said Bhukya Chokla, respondent No. 4, at his instance, has lodged the present complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner No. 3 lodged a complaint against Bhukya Chokla on 07.07.2016, and based on the said complaint, Crime No. 189 of 2016 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 427, and 506 of IPC on the file of Mellacheruvu Police Station. Likewise, petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint against Bhukya Chokla and four others on 04.03.2017, and based on the said complaint, Crime No. 54 of 2017 was registered for the offences under Sections 447 , 341, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. When these complaints are pending, at the instance of the accused therein, respondent No. 4 has lodged the present complaint against the petitioners as a counterblast. Hence, the offences under Sections 504 , 506, and 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the POA Act are not attracted against the petitioners, and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of the process of law. 6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home vehemently contended that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners, namely that they abused respondent No. 4 in the name of her caste and also attacked her. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 504 , 506, and 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the POA Act are attracted against the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not has to be revealed during the course of investigation. On the grounds pleaded in the present writ petition, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the FIR, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the brother-in-law of respondent No.4, namely Bhukya Chokla. Petitioners Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 have filed civil suits vide O.S. Nos. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the brother-in-law of respondent No.4, namely Bhukya Chokla. Petitioners Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 have filed civil suits vide O.S. Nos. 8, 9, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of 2017 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, seeking grant of perpetual injunction. In the said suits, Bhukya Chokla was made a defendant. 8. The record further reveals that petitioner No.3 and petitioner No.1 have lodged complaints against the said Bhukya Chokla and four others. Basing on their complaints, Crime Nos. 189 of 2016 and 54 of 2017 were registered on the file of Mellacheruvu Police Station. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, filed final reports before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate Court and the said Court has taken cognizance. Respondent No.4 lodged the present crime at the instance of the accused in the above said crimes, as a counterblast. A perusal of the complaint reveals that, according to respondent No.4, the alleged incident occurred on 21.05.2017 at about 03:00 A.M. At that point of time, respondent No.4 and her husband were the only persons present. The alleged abusive words uttered against respondent No.4 do not fall within the meaning of “public view”. Taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered in any place within the “public view” is not made out. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another , [ (2020) 10 SCC 710 ] held that an essential ingredient of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is that the alleged abusive words must be uttered in any place within public view. The Court clarified that this requirement is not satisfied where the incident takes place inside a private building and no member of the public is present. The Court clarified that this requirement is not satisfied where the incident takes place inside a private building and no member of the public is present. The Court further observed that when the dispute between the parties essentially pertains to possession of property and is already the subject matter of civil proceedings, allegations arising merely from such a dispute do not attract the provisions of the Act unless it is specifically shown that the complainant was abused, intimidated, or harassed solely on the ground of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the presence of respondent no. 4 and her husband alone, with no other person present at the spot. Therefore, the mandatory requirement of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) being committed within public view is not fulfilled, and accordingly, the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) are not attracted. 10. For the foregoing reasons, as well as the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra), this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R. No.227 of 2017 of P.S. Mellacheruvu, Suryapet District amounts to an abuse of process of law, and it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings in F.I.R. No.227 of 2017 of P.S. Mellacheruvu, Suryapet District, against the petitioners are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined to the purpose of deciding this case. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.