Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17385
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
M.M.Shakeel – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition|No.1497 of 2023|Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, Mr. V.Rohith
For the Respondents: Mrs. S.Madhavi
Insufficient evidence and unexplained delays constitute grounds for quashing charges of intimidation and caste abuse under relevant laws.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 - Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioners accused of criminal intimidation yet no specific allegations made against them, delays in complaint registration remain unexplained, and disputes determined to be civil in nature. Court finds insufficient evidence to sustain charges under IPC and SC/ST Act. (Paras 6, 8, 12)
(B) Criminal Intimidation - Definition and requirements - Court specifies that mere allegations without corroborating eyewitness testimony cannot sustain a charge, highlighting the lack of independent witness statements as a key failure in prosecution’s case. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners moved to quash proceedings linked to ongoing land disputes. Allegations involve intimidation and caste abuse, yet the evidence presented raises doubts on credibility. Charges under the relevant acts were contested based on the nature of the claims.
Findings of Court:
Charges quashed due to a lack of substantive evidence, delays in case filing, and the civil nature of disputes among parties. Petitioners were not subject to trial based on insufficient allegations.
Issues: Primary concerns revolved around the validity of the complaints, specific allegations against named petitioners, and the evidentiary basis for charges under the applicable laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that criminal intimidation was not substantiated by concrete evidence, resulting in a determination that prosecution against the petitioners was unwarranted. Notably, the absence of independent witnesses severely undermined the case.
Result: Petition allowed, quashing proceedings against the accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and claims regarding land ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legitimacy of the complaint and representation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on the evidence and witness reliability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SCs/STs Cases-cum-VIII Additional District Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, for the offences under Section 506 read with Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), Sections 3 (1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 2015 (for short the ‘Act’).
2. Heard Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.V.Rohith, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State. There is no representation for respondent No.3-de facto complainant. Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe Community, is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.28 gts. in Sy.No.202/E situated at Arsapally Village sivar (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’). The de facto complainant acquired the subject land from his ancestors through a registered sale deed bearing document No.8739 of 2018, and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. The de facto complainant has also obtained interim order by approaching this Court by filing W.P.No.45633 of 2018. On 14.03.2019, when the de facto complainant tied a banner and pasted a sticker on the compound wall of the subject land, the petitioners trespassed into the subject land, they have criminally intimidated the de facto complainant in furtherance of their common intention and abused him in the name of the caste.
4. Submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners:
4.1. There is a delay in lodging the complaint. In fact, the petitioner- accused No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land, having purchased the same by way of two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.2456 and 2600 of 1996, dated 20.06.1996 and 26.06.1996 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.2 has gifted the subject land in favour of the petitioner-accused No.3. When the de facto complainant interfered with his possession, the petitioner- accused No.3 has filed two civil suits in O.S.Nos.136 of 2019 and 255 of 2021 seeking perpetual injunction against the de facto complainant and temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioners in O.S.No.255 of 2021. Thereafter, O.S.No.136 of 2019 was withdrawn by the petitioner-accused No.3.
4.2. LW2/R.Punnam Chand, who is the son of the de facto complainant, along with others, has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.98 of 2021 against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 and others. In the said suit, they have also filed an I.A. seeking temporary injunction. Initially, temporary injunction was granted in favour of de facto complainant’s son. However, when the petitioners herein filed counter, the trial Court, upon considering all the materials available on record, has vacated the temporary injunction granted in favour of de facto complainant’s son.
4.3. According to the complaint, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners as to how they have criminally intimidated the de facto complainant or others. Furthermore, when it is alleged that all the petitioners have abused the de facto complainant in one chorus, the offence under SC/ST Act, is not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. It is further con
