O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners/A1 & A2, questioning the proceedings pending against them before the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, in SC.ST/SC.No.39 of 2021 in Crime No.74 of 2020 and to quash the same.

2. Learned Special Judge took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 r/w.109 of IPC & Sections 3(1)(f), 3(2) (va) of SCs/STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015.

3. The case of the 3^rd respondent is that she owns Ac.6.6 cents of land in Survey No.794. She sowed Red Gram crop in her land 25 days prior to the lodging of the complaint, i.e., 02.07.2020. On 29.06.2020 at about 7.00 p.m., A2 went to the land and destroyed half of the crop by ploughing it.

4. The said complaint was registered by the Police, and statements of the 3^rd respondent and other witnesses were recorded. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statements filed, the witnesses narrated that A1 provided tractors to A2 and instructed him to trespass into the agricultural fields of the 3^rd respondent and destroy the crop. The other villagers, who are examined as LWs.2, 3, and 4, also stated that petitioners caused destruction in the land of the 3^rd respondent. LWs.5 and 6 also speak about the tractors belonging to LW.7 being used for ploughing the 3^rd respondent’s land.

5. On the basis of the statements of the witnesses and considering the scene of offence, a charge sheet was laid.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that a false complaint is filed, and even according to the 3rd respondent, the incident took place on 29.06.2020, whereas the complaint was filed nearly 3 days later. There is no explanation for the delay. Further, A1 was made an accused only on the basis of the confession of A2. In the said circumstances, even admitting for a moment that A2 had trespassed into the lands and destroyed the Red Gram crop, no offence is made out against him. The confession cannot form the sole basis to implicate A1/1st petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3^rd respondent would submit that though no details were given in the complaint, however, 161 Cr.P.C. statements clearly indicate that A1 provided the tractors to A2 for the purpose of ploughing the land of the 3rd respondent. Witnesses were examined and the tractors were also identified.

8. As argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the implication of A1 is not on the basis of the confession of A2, but on account of the statements made and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation by the Investigating Officer. The witnesses have stated that A1 had asked A2 to take 3 tractors, which are, i) TS 15 EV 4733, ii) TS 15 UC-7486, and iii) TS 15 UC- 4594, belonging to LW.7, and to plough the land of the 3^rd respondent. LW.7 speaks about his ownership of the three tractors. Two others, i.e., LWs.4 and 5, who are the drivers of the tractors, were also examined.

9. In the said circumstances, a prima facie case is made out that both the petitioners have indulged in acts of causing destruction of the Red Gram crop, and the offences alleged under SC/STs (PoA) Act are also made out. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 & A2 cannot be quashed.

10. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.04.2025 tk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7409 OF 2021 Dt. 11.04.2025 tk