Telangana High Court
Ravella Padmavathi Padmavathamma vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3704 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 88 of 2020 of Bonakal Police Station, Khammam registered for the offences under Sections 420, 294-B, 506 of IPC, and Section 3(1) (r) (s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner is sole accused in the said crime.
2. Heard Sri K.Sarath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent - State and Sri Nageshwara Rao Repakula, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.
3. The allegation against the petitioner in the complaint dated 11.03.2020 lodged by the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner, through one Sakhamuri Rajasekhar got divided the land in Sy.No.132/A situated at Chirunomula Village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District into 32 plots saying that it is her land. On 21.05.2015, the petitioner has offered to sell her plots vide Nos.16,17 and 18 out of 32 plots to an extent of Ac.606.6sq.yards in the above survey number for a total sale 2 consideration of Rs.8,68,600/- without registration charges for which the defacto-complainant accepted. On the same day he paid the entire amount to the petitioner in the presence of said Sakhamuri Rajasekhar who was acted as mediator between them. After receiving the said amount, she assured him that at the time of registration, she will execute registered sale deed in his favour only for an amount of Rs.300/- per sq.yard instead of Rs.1450 per sq.yard only to avoid taxes and accordingly she executed the registered sale deed vide document No.6892 of 2015 at Sub Registrar Office, Madhira, Khammam District. Immediately after registration, she promised that she shall hand over the said three plots to him after clearing all encumbrances and getting land conversion permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. He believed her words till he received notice from the Court.
4. On enquiry, he came to know that the petitioner's own sister by name V.Girija has filed a civil case before the Junior Civil Judge, Madhira, against the petitioner and other plot purchasers. Therefore, the petitioner suppressing the fact that the property belong to her own sister by name V.Girija, dishonestly executed registered sale deed in his favour stating that it is her own property and dishonestly cheated him 3 with an intention of getting wrongful gain and caused wrongful loss to him. When he questioned the petitioner about her cheating, she not only intimidated him but also abused him by referring his caste name 'Mala' as he belongs to Scheduled Caste 'Mala' with an intent to humiliate him. on 28.12.2019 about 12.030 P.M., the petitioner also threatened him in the presence of K.Arlappa, N.Ramesh at bus shelter of Chirunomula Village that she will see his end if he files any case against her.
5. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, dated 11.03.2020, the Police, Bonakal Police Station, have registered the subject crime against the petitioner herein i.e. Cr.No.88 of 2020 on 09.06.2020 for the aforesaid offences.
6. Sri K. Sarath, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1-33guantas in Sy.No.132/A situated at Chirunomula Village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District. In proof of the same, he has filed pattadar passbook. He has also filed conversion proceedings dated 27.09.2013 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. Perusal of the said proceedings would reveal that the petitioner herein claiming that she, being the owner of the subject land applied for conversion of agricultural land as non-agricultural land. She has 4 remitted an amount of Rs.2,38,491/- towards conversion charges. Considering the said facts only, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam has issued the said conversion proceedings in favour of the petitioner herein.
7. Smt. Vattikonda Girija, sister of the petitioner herein had filed a suit vide O.S.No.97 of 2018 for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner herein, 2nd respondent and 14 others from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.1-23 guntas in Sy.No.133 situated at Chirunomula Village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District. The said suit is pending. Thus, the sister of the petitioner herein had filed the said suit claiming that she is the owner of the land in Sy.No.133 of Chirunomula Village. She has also referred pattadar passbook No.T26010070359. The petitioner herein has mentioned that there is a road towards South of the land in Sy.No.132/A is false. The petitioner herein had filed written statement in the said suit contending that she is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.132/A. of Chirunomula Village. She has obtained conversion proceedings dated 27.09.2013. She has also converted the land into house plots and sold away the said plots to different persons including 5 the 2nd respondent herein and they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots without any interruption. The said suit is pending.
8. Sri Nagashwara Rao Repakula, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, referring to the order dated 15.02.2020 in Appeal No.D4/2550/2019 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Khammam, would submit that the District Collector has set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.C3/LC/0097/2019, dated 11.09.2019 issued by the Sub Collector, Khammam District. By the said order, the District Collector has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, to re-examine the entire file in Rc.No.A4/2820/2013 and the proceedings dated 27.09.2013 and consider the case in a fresh manner by following due procedure to take further action in the matter. There is also mention about the joint inspection of land in Sy.Nos.132 and 133.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one N.Ramesh and three others have filed a writ Petition i.e. W.P.No.8192 of 2021 challenging the order dated 15.02.2020 passed by the District Collector and this Court has granted interim suspension of the said order. In the said order of interim suspension, there is mention about filing of writ petition vide W.P.No.3087 of 2021. One more writ petition vide W.P.No.23175 of 2020 is also pending.
6
10. The said facts would reveal that the petitioner herein is claiming that she is the owner of land to the extent of Ac.1.33guntas in Sy.No.132/A of Chirunomula Village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District. Her sister is claiming that she is the owner of the land in Sy.No.133 of the very same village. The petitioner herein has filed copies of pattadar passbook, conversion proceedings and other proceedings to show that she is the owner of the land in Sy.No.132/A. She has sold the plot Nos.16, 17 and 18 in favour of the 2nd respondent under a registered sale deed bearing document No.6815 of 2015, dated 21.05.2015. Her sister had filed the above said suit on 05.07.2018. It is relevant to note that the said suit is only for perpetual injunction. The said suit is filed after three years of sale of the above said three plots by the petitioner in favour of the 2nd respondent. The above said facts would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioner and her sister. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein in her written statement filed in O.S.No.97 of 2018, has categorically stated that she is the owner of the subject land, she has obtained conversion proceedings, dated 27.09.2013. She has sold the residential plots to the respective purchasers including the 2nd respondent and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plots. The said suit is also 7 pending. The above said three writ petitions are also pending. During the pendency of the said proceedings, instead of waiting for the outcome of the same, the 2nd respondent has lodged the present complaint on 09.06.2020 i.e. after lapse of almost 5 years. Prima facie, the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein more particularly Sections 420, 294-B and 506 of IPC.
11. It is relevant to note that the 2nd respondent has not mentioned the date, time and other particulars on which the petitioner herein threatened him etc. The contents of the complaint are vague. The proceedings dated 15.02.2020 issued by the District Collector, were not challenged. There is an interim suspension of the said proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner herein without waiting for the outcome of the above said suit and writ petitions, implicated the petitioner herein in the above said case.
12. It is also relevant to note that a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in a judgment dated 25.10.2021 in Crl.A.No.1393 of 2011 in Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh held as follows:-
19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the afore-stated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing 8 complete justice between the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that:
Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, genesis of the deprecated incident was the afore-stated civil/ property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being over-archingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case.
Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although the Appellant may not belong to same caste as the Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of the segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restri ct their quartes only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining houses.9
Therefore, keeping in mind the socioeconomic status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed.
Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired.
Fourthly, Complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against the accused.
Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellant had been concluded.
Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are residents of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement.
13. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand1, held as follows:-
'since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession 1 (2020) 10 SCC 710 10 of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe'.
In the present case, one suit and three writ petitions are pending with regard to the subject property which is subject matter of the above said suit and writ petitions and the 2nd respondent has to wait for the outcome of the same. The complainant has to prove that the petitioner has intimidated and harassed the 2nd respondent on the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. There is no such allegation in the complaint. As stated supra, the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner.
14. In view of the above said law laid down by the Apex Court and also in view of the discussion supra, according to this Court, the proceedings against the petitioner herein in Cr.No.88 of 2020 pending on the file of Bonakal Police Station, are liable to be quashed against the petitioner herein.
15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in Cr.No.88 of 2020 pending on the file of Bonakal Police Station, Khammam, against the petitioner herein are quashed. 11
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:06.06.2022.
b/o. vvr