Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 950

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Parayitam Anand Sharma, S/o. Vishnumurthy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep. by P.P., High Court at Hyderabad, Through P.S. Amangal, Ranga Reddy district and another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.6444 of 2023
Decided On : 23-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy
For the Respondents: Mr. G. Chandra Shekar, Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor.

For an offence under the SC/ST Act to exist, abusive words must be public, caste-specific, and intentional; such elements were absent in this case, leading to quashing of proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 - Section 3(1)(r)(s) - Criminal Petition seeking quashment of proceedings for alleged caste-based abuse - Allegations arose from a civil dispute over property, with no public presence during the incident; therefore, essential ingredients of the offence were not satisfied. (Paras 11, 18, 20)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court's inherent powers to quash proceedings where continuation constitutes an abuse of process - The Court emphasized that prosecutions must not be a means of harassment or settling personal disputes. (Paras 16, 20)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner accused of caste-based abuse after failing to execute a sale deed related to property sold to complainant's father; delays in lodging the complaint noted.

Findings of Court:
Continuation of proceedings deemed an abuse of law; essential elements of the alleged offences were not established.

Issues: Whether sufficient grounds exist for prosecution under the SC/ST Act amidst ongoing civil proceedings over property.

Ratio Decidendi: Court concluded that for SC/ST Act offences to apply, there must be clear evidence of caste-based abuse occurring in public view; without these, charges were unfounded.

Result: Criminal petition allowed, proceedings quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments made by both parties (Para 4 , 5)
3. court’s analysis and observations on claims (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 18)
4. ratio decidendi regarding misuse of sc/st act (Para 9 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. conclusion and order to quash the proceedings (Para 20 , 21)

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in SC.SPL.No.256 of 2022 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Court for the trial of SC/ST Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case :

Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 04.06.2021 stating that his father, Chintakindi Laxmaiah, purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3.15 gts. in Sy.Nos.32, 33 and 73 from the petitioner through a plain paper (sada bainama) for total sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and he paid the said amount by way of installments and he has been in possession of the said land and operating agricultural operations. He further stated that he and his father approached the petitioner and requested him to execute the registered sale deed, but he refused to register sale deed and that the petitioner filed O.S.No.345 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Kalwakurthy against him and his father. On 05.05.2021, he along with some of his villagers went to the petitioner and asked him to execute registered sale deed by showing sada binama and the petitioner stated that he did not alienate the land and abused him in the name of his caste. Basing on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.103 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet on 09.09.2021 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-SC/STs Court at Mahabubnagar and the said Court was transferred to the Court of VII Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Court for trial of SC/ST, Ranga Reddy District, and renumbered it as SC.SPL.No.256 of 2022.

3. Heard Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Mamindla, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Chandra Shekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he has not abused respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and he was falsely implicated by making allegations in the complaint with an intention to harass him and also to dissolve civil disputes pending between them. He further submitted that according to the complaint, the alleged incident occurred on 05.05.2021, however, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 04.06.2021, after lapse one month, without giving any reasons for the said delay.

4.2. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the father of respondent No.2 had not initiated any proceedings seeking enforcement of the said sada sale deed by approaching the competent civil Court or before revenue authorities, pursuant to the alleged sada sale deed dated 23.06.1999. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet is purely civil in nature.

4.3. He also submitted that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.345 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Amangal in respect of the very same property and wherein ad interim injunction order was granted restraining respondent No.2 and his father from interfering with the suit schedule property and the said