IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused, determining that the allegations were civil in nature and lacked prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] have been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 & 3 and Accused No.1 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.123 of 2019 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge-cum- Special Court for SC/ST PoA Act Cases, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act[for short ‘the Atrocities Act’] , 1989.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a. Petitioners in are Accused Nos.1 to 3. On 01.09.2019, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (g) and 3 (2) (va) of the Atrocities Act. Police after investigation, laid charge sheet against the Petitioners for the offence under Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) of the Act by deleting the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with 34 IPC.

b. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 acquired Ac.3.00 cents of land in Sy.No.82 of Gajuwaka Village through her mother Hemalatha. After the death of her husband, her family friend Paripalli Rama Rao took care of the land issues.

c. It is stated that on 07.06.2019 Respondent No.2 along with Paripalli Rama Rao were obstructed with construction work by Accused No.1, with the help of Accused Nos.2 and 3. It is further stated that Respondent No.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste community, as such, all the Accused forged and fabricated the documents and tried to occupy her property. Hence, the complaint.

Grounds Sought for Quashment

3. After completion of investigation in the said crime, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as S.C.No.123 of 2019 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC/ST PoA Act Cases, Visakhapatnam. The said case is sought to be quashed by Petitioners/A.1 to A.3 on the following grounds:

a. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the title holders and are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Accused Nos.2 and 3 along with one B.Subba Rao have been granted Ryotwari pattas in 1985 in accordance with Section 4 of A.P. Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 and in tune with Rule 7, the Ryotwari patta was granted to each of the Petitioner on 21.11.1985. Thereafter, the Municipal Authorities have granted permission for layout and for construction of residential buildings.

b. It is stated that the Special Deputy Tahsildar(Inams), Visakhapatnam issued proceedings dated 30.11.1978 after conducting suo-moto enquiry, wherein, a patta was granted to the tenant to an extent of Ac.8.99 cents. It is a patta land. The Tahsildar issued proceedings on 06.07.2013 stating that the subject property is a Government land.

c. The R.D.O and the Collector, after conducting enquiry, declared that the possession of various properties in Sy.No.82 particularly the share of 1572 square yards is a patta land. The Tahsildar issued proceedings directing Accused Nos.2 and 3 to appear for enquiry and for verification of documents on 16.07.2014. The land in Sy.No.82, which is situated in Gajuwaka Village is a Government land. Till the disposal of W.P.No.6689 of 2003, the land in Sy.No.82 of Gajuwaka Village will be treated as “No Man’s Land?.

d. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 were being threatened to be dispossessed from their properties situated in Sy.No.82. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 filed W.P.No.23959 of 2014 before this Court, wherein, directions have been given to maintain status-quo by both sides relating to survey of land in Sy.No.82.

e. It is further stated that Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Gajuwaka on 25.06.2019 to depute staff for conducting the survey. Respondent No.2/Complainant reported that she had purchased 600 square yards of vacant si