THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.7209 OF 2019

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused to quash the proceedings against petitioner in SC.Special No.13 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge & Special Court for SC/ST Cases at Warangal.

2. The 2^nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that she purchased Acs.2.00 of land in Sy.Nos.191 and 199 situated at Ramavaram Village, Kodakandla Mandal, Janagaon District from Kattar Narsimha Rao, who is the father of this petitioner. The said land was purchased 30 years ago by paying an amount of Rs.9,500/-. The 2^nd respondent and her husband requested the said Narasmha Rao and his son to execute document for Acs.2.00 of land. However, they dodged the issue and did not register the land. The land was being cultivated by her family. The said Narasimha Rao died. This petitioner, who is the son of Narasimha Rao was threatening that the land did not belong to them. On 10.09.2018, the 2^nd respondent received information that her grandson received injury, for which reason she went to Hyderabad. On the same day, this petitioner trespassed into the land with JCB machine, one dozer and two tractors and removed neem trees, babool trees and leveled the land. The daughter of the 2^nd respondent was present and asked the petitioner not to trespass into the land and talk to her mother. However the petitioner abused stating that they are land lords and the complainant and family belong to Madiga caste. The loss incurred was Rs.20,000/- for removing the trees and also Rs.5,000/- for demolishing the cattle shed. The police having taken the complaint registered the crime for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(f)(r) (s), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 and thereafter charge sheet was filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even according to the 2^nd respondent, there was never any document transferring the rights of land to her. They were in possession of the said property illegally and filed false complaint against this petitioner to usurp the land by involving him in a criminal case.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that though the revenue records did not reflect the 2^nd respondent as possessor or owner of the land, however, she claims that 30 years ago, she had paid an amount of Rs.9,500/- to the father of the petitioner.

5. Admittedly, there is no document transferring rights of the land to the 2^nd respondent. She claims that amount was paid. However, there is neither receipt nor any agreement of sale that was entered into. The other witnesses, who are the daughter and other caste people were also examined. All of them narrate that this petitioner had trespassed into the land with the JCB and demolished the cattle shed and also uprooted the trees.

6. Panchanama was conducted at the scene of offence. Villagers state that the 2^nd respondent was in possession and cultivating the land.

7. Section 3(1)(f) & (r) of the Act reads as follows:

“(f) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land, owned by, or in the possession of or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, or gets such land transferred;”

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;”

8. As already discussed, there is no documentary proof of any ownership or that the 2nd respondent was in possession or allotted the said land. However, several witnesses have spoken about possession of land by 2nd respondent and abusing and threatening by petitioner. The correctness or otherwise of the evidence can only be tested during trial after witnesses are examined.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

__________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 25.09.2023 kvs THE HON’BLE