Telangana High Court
Patnam Anjaiah vs State Of Telangana And Another on 30 August, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4753 of 2019
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner - accused No.1 to quash S.C.No.19 of 2019 on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for trial of cases filed under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, Nizamabad District registered against him for the offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 3 (2)(vi)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as under:
a) The respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that he is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.No.117 of Siddapoor Village, Shivar of Jukkal Mandal, Nizamabad District. The respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant has obtained a pahani pathrika for the year 2010.11 from the VRO, Siddapur Village with the attestation of Tahsildar, Jukkal on 20.05.2011. The respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant has filed a suit for injunction against Javed Khansab and two others vide O.S.No.13 of 2011. 2
On 30.05.2011 one Javed Khansab and others also filed a counter case to O.S.No.13 of 2011 by filing link documents, panchanama, pahani pathrikas for the year 2010-11, which were issued by the revenue officials i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3. On that the respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant went to Tahasil Office, Jukkal and asked as to how they can issue the documents to said Javed Khan Sab without proper enquiry and issuing prior notice to him. On that accused have abused and humiliated the respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant in filthy language by taking his caste name by stating as "Ore Lambadi Munda Koduka, nuvvu evadivira adigevadivi".
b) The said private complaint was referred to Police concerned, who have registered a case in Crime No.39 of 2011 against the petitioners for the offences under Section 10 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 3 (2)(vi)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act. After completion of investigation, the Sub - Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy has filed charge sheet, which was numbered as S.C.No.19 of 2019 on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for trial of cases filed under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 3 Nizamabad District. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present criminal petition on the following grounds:
i) The respondent No.2 made a complaint before the Court stating that on 03.06.2011 he came to office of the MRO and enquired about change of name of the possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.No.117 of Siddhapur Village in revenue records for the year 2010.11. Then the Tahilsdar informed respondent No.2 to approach the RDO, Bodhan for necessary orders for change of entries in the revenue records. The respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.13 of 2011 against private party and obtained an order against him. The respondent No.2 kept quiet for some time and surprisingly filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bichkunda on 10.06.2011 seeking a direction to the Police to register the crime. Basing on the directions of the Court below the Station House Officer, Jukkal registered a case on 15.07.2011 after one month twelve days. After registering the FIR, on 18.07.2011 the respondent No.2 has deposed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bodhan by stating that on the advice of one Sri Vittal, Advocate of Bichkunda, he filed the case and that Mandal Revenue Officer or Revenue Inspector or Village Revenue Officer had never used the words with the caste. 4
ii) Sri T. Vittal, Advocate practicing at Bichkunda was provoking the people to file cases under SC/ST (POA) Act and he himself setting the cases by taking huge money and most of the cases were withdrawn. In this case, the petitioner did not yield to the demands of Sri T.Vittal, Advocate, who provoked respondent No.2 to file this case against the petitioners.
iii) Except the statement made by the respondent No.2 that "lambadoda, emi chesukuntavo chesuko" was used by three persons, the respondent No.2 never specified as to who uttered those words.
iv) Accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed Criminal Revision Case No.672 of 2013 before the High Court and the same was allowed on 26.12.2018 and thereby the charge sheet is pending only to the extent of the petitioner herein. As the petitioner retired from the office of Tahsil, Jukkal, the Police have made allegations against him.
3. Now the point for determination is:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.1 in S.C.No.19 of 2019 on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for trial of 5 cases filed under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, Nizamabad District can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
5. Heard Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on respondent No.2, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even according to the charge sheet, it is clear that the petitioner has not committed any offence and it is a false case foisted against him. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while appraising the contentions, has submitted that the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure goes to show that the petitioner has committed offence against the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant, who belongs to ST Community.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record.
8. The statement of witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Police clearly speaks that 6 the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant has stated in the statement that he has visited the office of Tahsildar and enquired with petitioner - accused No.1 as to how can give certificate in favour of Javed Khan Sab on which the MRO i.e., the petitioner-accused has not given any convenient reply and asked him to go to the RDO and filed a petition. The respondent No.2-de-facto complainant in turn went to his counsel by name Sri Vittal, who told him that respondent No.2- de-facto complainant belongs to Lambada caste and thereby advised him to file cases against MRO and accordingly, the complaint is filed.
9. The respondent No.2-de-facto complainant has clearly stated that the petitioner-accused has not mentioned anything against the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and on the ill advice given by one Sri Vittal, Advocate, a false case has been foisted. However, in the statement of respondent No.2-de-facto complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he changed his version stating that the petitioner-accused has abused him by taking the caste name.
10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that in initial statement of the respondent No.2-de-facto 7 complainant he did not depose anything against the petitioner- accused but subsequently in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only on the ill advice of one Sri Vittal, Advocate, he has improved his case with an intention to fix the petitioner-accused in the false case.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has filed copy of the order dated 26.12.2018 in Criminal Revision Case No.672 of 2013, wherein accused Nos.2 and 3 have challenged the orders dated 18.03.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2013 in Crime No.39 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bichkunda against them for taking cognizance of the offence for the offence under Sections 3 (2)(vi) and (vii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As seen from the said order, it is clear that the Criminal Revision Case No.672 of 2013 was allowed and the orders dated 18.03.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.240 of 2013 in Crime No.39 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bichkunda were set aside and as a consequence accused Nos.2 and 3 were discharged from the offence. The relevant portion of the orders passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision Case No.672 of 2013, are as under: 8
"While so, the IO got recorded the 164 Cr.P.C.
statement of complainant on 15.0966.2011 i.e., three months after lodging FIR. In this statement, for the first time, the complainant stated as if A1 to A3 in one voice abused him in the name of his caste. Needless to emphasize that the stand of complainant is fickle and volatile so far as the culpability of petitioners/A2 and A3 is concerned. In that view of the matter, the learned Magistrate ought to have been more vigilant before taking cognizance of offence against the petitioners/A2 and A3."
12. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner-accused has made out a prima-facie case that there is no case against him and that the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant has filed a false case against the petitioner - accused on the ill advice of the advocate. Thus, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in S.C.No.19 of 2019 on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge for trial of cases filed under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, Nizamabad District amounts to abuse of process of law.
13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in S.C.No.19 of 2019 on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions 9 Judge - cum - Special Judge for trial of cases filed under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, Nizamabad District are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 30.08.2022 AS