Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. R. Gavai, CJI., Augustine George Masih, J.
Konde Nageshwar Rao – Appellant
Versus
A. Srirama Chandra Murty & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2018
Decided On : 23-07-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Chandrachud, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Selvam P, Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) False implication in criminal case – Merely because complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be sole ground for prosecution – Offences alleged must have been committed solely on the basis of victim’s caste status – Misuse of statute to settle personal scores or to harass individuals cannot be permitted if it is apparent.
(2) Prosecution needs to be quashed at an early stage to prevent undue harassment of accused where there is clear legal infirmity in prosecution case.
Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Wrongful allotment – False implication in criminal case – Criminal prosecution quashed by High Court – Merely because complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be sole ground for prosecution – Offences alleged must have been committed solely on the basis of victim’s caste status – Misuse of statute to settle personal scores or to harass individuals cannot be permitted if it is apparent – Prosecution needs to be quashed at an early stage to prevent undue harassment of accused where there is clear legal infirmity in prosecution case – Such acts cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and need to be stopped at the very outset so that there is no miscarriage of justice – Observations and conclusions arrived at by High Court are based upon proper appreciation of pleadings, correct reading and application of law and cannot be faulted with – Impugned order as passed by High Court being in accordance with law does not call for any interference. (Paras 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal questions judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court for State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh dated 15.10.2014, whereby Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by Respondents for offences under Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SC/ST Act) was allowed by quashing the proceedings against Respondents herein.
Findings of Court:
Observations and conclusions arrived at by High Court are based upon proper appreciation of pleadings, correct reading and application of law and cannot be faulted with. Impugned order dated 15.10.2014 as passed by High Court being in accordance with law does not call for any interference.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. This Appeal questions the judgment passed by the Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 15.10.2014, whereby Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) preferred by Respondents No. 1 and 2, who were Accused 1 and 2 respectively in P.R.C. No. 25 of 2004, pending before the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Eluru for the offences under Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SC/ST Act) was allowed by quashing the said proceedings against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.
2. The origin of this case is from a land allotment dispute in Duvva village, where the Appellant herein alleged that Respondent No. 2, who was the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) at the behest Accused No. 3, the proprietor of Ramakrishna Cine Theatre of the same village, manipulated the allotment of two plots to the upper caste individuals related to him, earmarked for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe beneficiaries.
3. This allotment was objected by the Appellant, because of which it is alleged that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case as part of a conspiracy in retaliation, owing to the action initiated against Respondent No. 2 on the complaint of the Appellant relating to the wrongful allotment of the plots. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Appellant was working as a Junior Accountant in Government Printing Press at Hyderabad and, because of the criminal case, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, on a representation submitted by him in the criminal case, it was found that he was not even present in the village when the offence had taken place, in which he had been roped in by Respondent No. 1 at the asking of Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 3.
4. The criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellant were based upon a clash that occurred on 15.05.1995 between the two groups of Scheduled Caste in Kothamalapalli village. The case was registered as Crime No. 40 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 148, 452, 324 r/w 149 IPC at Tanuku Rural Police Station.
5. Respondent No. 1 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, and the Investigating Officer in this case. It was further alleged that the Appellant was not named initially in the FIR, but his name figured subsequently at the time of the filing of the charge sheet.
6. What was alleged was that this action of wrongful involvement in the case was on account of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste, and it was for that reason that he was being prosecuted with a malicious intent. After the report was submitted by the Competent Authority, he was found innocent and thereafter the criminal proceedings which were initiated against him were dropped.
7. After the prosecution against the Appellant had been withdrawn, a complaint was filed by the Appellant against Respondents No. 1 and 2, along with Accused No. 3. It was alleged that at the behest of Respondent No. 2, the MRO, who bore a grudge against the Appellant, as well as Accused No. 3, whose relatives were the beneficiaries of such allotment, Respondent No. 1 was instigated, and all three, in conspiracy with each other, implicated the Appellant and his brother. Allegations regarding humiliation, harassment and the commission of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were made, which upon investigation by a Deputy Superintendent of Police were found to be substantiated. A complaint was then filed, after obtaining proper sanction for prosecution against Respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Magistrate, which led to the filing of the petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court.
8. The Private Respondents herein filed Writ Petitions No. 25527 and 24608 of 2000 before the High Court, which were ultimately disposed of by order dated 06.01.2003, by observing that upon completion
