IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal allegations, asserting that civil matters should not be criminalized without sufficient evidence.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in laying charge sheet dated 21.05.2014 arising out of FIR No.157 of 2013 on the file of Hindupur I Town Police Station, Anantapur District and now on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 7th respondent herein said to have given a complaint to the police dated 18.12.2012 alleging that the 1st petitioner along with his wife and his daughter, K. Ramanjaneyulu and his wife Kamalamma attacked them on the night of 16.12.2012 at 9.15 p.m. and abused them in their caste name. Thereafter, the 7th respondent has filed a writ petition in WP No.9361 of 2013 before this Court claiming that the police have not registered the case. Though the 1st petitioner, Ramanjaneyulu and his wife Kamalamma are parties to the writ petition, this Court disposed of the same at the admission stage directing the police to register the crime enquire into the matter and file a final report. Accordingly the police registered a case in FIR No.157/2013 on 28.10.2013 under Sections 447, 323, 354 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act 1989. In fact the Ramanjaneyulu sent all the papers to the Investigating Officer by RPAD along with a petition under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. as already stated the 1st petitioner has personally handed over to the 6th respondent a set of papers to him on 8.1.2014 though the 1stpetitioner has not asked any receipt for the same. The 1st petitioner has also given a representation on 6.1.2014 to the DIG, Rayalaseema Division with all documents. The police officer, who investigated into the crime and filed charge sheet in a casual and routine manner without reference to the facts of the case and without looking of the genesis of the dispute made those allegations. Further the whole dispute is a civil dispute which clearly indicates that the 5th accused and his brother were held to be the owners of the property. The very claim of the petitioner is not the property in dispute. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3. While denying the allegations made in the petition contended that the petitioners have given a representation to the respondent No.2 is true. The then Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram was endorsed the same to the 4threspondent and he submitted his report as civil in nature. But with regard to the allegations levelled by the 7th respondent that the petitioners and 2 others abused her in filthy language by touching her caste and the evidence collected by the LO categorically established that the offence took place and hence after coming to the conclusion that prima facie case is established against het accused, charge sheet is filed before the JFCM, Hindupur and the Court was taken the case on file and petitioners are having every opportunity to avail all remedies before the concerned jurisdictional Court and without availing the remedies they approached this Court with untenable allegations and the same has to be decided during the trial only and not at this stage. Hence the writ petition deserves no consideration and hence prayed to dismiss the same.

4. The 7th and 8th respondents have also filed their counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that all the accused in the crime are interrelated. All of them created terror in the minds of the defacto complainant and her family members for no fault of them. The petitioners and other accused made all their attempt to dispossess the defacto complainant and her family from possession and in that process used filthy language in the caste name and got involved in the criminal case. Thus the respondents have approached the police by filing the criminal complaint. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer examined all the witnesses in the case along with these respondents came to a conc