The court held that a complaint alleging offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 must be quashed if the allegations do not make out a case under the relevant provisions and if the complaint is not maintainable in light of other legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 8 in S.C. S.T. No. 4 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool District, for offences under Sections 447, 420, 323, 506, 509, 354 (A) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x)(g)(f)(i) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. The allegations in the complaint against the 21persons arrayed as accused in the complaint are as follows:

a) The de facto complainant acquired title and possession over the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.128/1 of Pandlapuram Revenue Village, Kurnool District, by way of a registered deed of settlement executed in her favour by her husband on 14.03.2017. The husband of the de facto complainant acquired this land by virtue of a partition between himself and his three sisters.

b) However, the 1st accused by way of registered deeds of sale dated 22.04.2006 and accused Nos.2 & 3 by way of a registered deed of sale dated 24.04.2010 and by way of a registered deed of sale dated 25.04.2012 had clandestinely created rights for themselves from one Late K. Ahmed Hussaini. On the basis of these clandestine documents, the accused Nos.1 to 3 accompanied by accused Nos.4 to 21 had obstructed the de facto complainant and her husband from carrying on agricultural operations in the land on 26.08.2018. On that day, all the accused attacked the de facto complainant and abused her in the name of her community. The husband of the de facto complainant was also assaulted when he sought to come to her rescue. On account of this assault, the de facto complainant and her husband has suffered injuries though the said injuries are injuries which are not visible.

c) The de facto complainant had moved the Court of the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool District by way of a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court had taken cognizance of this complaint after examining the witnesses on oath.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein had approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Petition for quashing the complaint against them.

4. Heard, Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

There is no representation for the de facto complainant, despite notice having been served on the de facto complainant in March, 2020 itself.

5. The case of the petitioners is that the allegations in the complaint are false and, in any event, the said allegations do not make out any case against the petitioners herein. The petitioners contend that the property comprising of Ac.3.00 cents of land and another Ac.3.30 cents of land had been purchased from the lawful owner of that land in the years 2010 & 2012 under registered deeds of sale after which the 1st petitioner had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. As the husband of the de facto complainant was trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the 1st petitioner with respect to the above land, O.S.No.59 of 2016 was filed by the 1st petitioner before the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganpalle, in which the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganpalle had granted an interim injunction in I.A.No.585 of 2016 in O.S.No.59 of 2016 and the same is still in force. The husband of the de facto complainant being unable to make out a case in the Civil Court has chosen the present path of getting his wife to file a complaint in order to pressurize the 1st petitioner and other accused to agree to the illegal demands of husband of the de facto complainant. It is further contended that the incidents alleged by the de facto complainant never took place and as such the continuation of S.C.S.T.No.4 of 2019 would be an abuse of the process of Court and requires to be quashed.

6. Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel apart from reiterating the aforesaid