Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17386
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Syed Layak Ali Gore Bhai Gore – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1498 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. V.Ravi Kiran Rao, Mr.V.Rohith
For the Respondents: Mrs. S.Madhavi
Absence of specific allegations and corroborative evidence resulted in quashing of criminal proceedings against the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 447, 427, 506 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 - Section 3(1)(g)(s) - Quashing of proceedings - Proceedings against petitioners quashed due to absence of specific allegations and evidence to support criminal intimidation and mischief - Delay in lodging the complaint also noted - No independent witnesses corroborated the claims of de facto complainant. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 14)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Jurisdiction of court to quash proceedings - The court must consider whether the allegations make out an offence and whether material shows guilt - If allegations are vague, the proceedings shall be quashed. (Paras 6, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are accused facing proceedings for trespassing and causing damage to property belonging to a Scheduled Tribe individual. The de facto complainant alleged an attack due to disputes over land ownership and claimed verbal abuse based on caste. Two civil suits related to the same property also exist. The complaint was delayed by ten days without explanation.
Findings of Court:
No specific allegations were found against the petitioners detailing criminal intimidation or mischief. Delay in filing and absence of corroborative evidence led to the conclusion that trial was not warranted.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the allegations made were specific enough to support charges under the IPC and SC/ST Act, and whether the civil disputes negated the criminal charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the accusations lacked substantive backing, with mere assertions failing to rise to the level of criminal conduct. Absence of independent witness testimony weakened the case against the petitioners.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed, proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and focus on civil ownership dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the insufficiency of criminal allegations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. lack of evidence results in doubts on prosecution claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final ruling to quash proceedings due to substantiation issues. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 12 and 13 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Spl.S.C.No.70 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 Sections 3 24 , 447, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), Section 3 (1)(g)(s) 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’), and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
When the petitioners are interfering with the subject land, the de facto complainant has filed a civil suit against them and obtained injunction order in his favour. While so, on 29.06.2021, the accused criminally trespassed into the subject land. On knowing the same, when the de facto complainant and others rushed to the scene, the accused abused them in filthy language in the name of caste, threatened them to kill and attacked the de facto complainant and others, causing injuries to them. The accused have also damaged LED TV, CCTV cameras, chairs, lights, fencing and tables.
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 brother of petitioner-accused No.6 namely Mohd. Abdul Saleem 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, said Mohd. Abdul Saleem has gifted the subject land in favour of petitioner- accused No.6. When the de facto complainant interfered with his possession, the petitioner-accused No.6 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.6.
4.2. LW-3/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.6 and 7 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 on 26.06.2021. As such, the present complaint was filed as a counterblast on 29.06.2021.
4.3. Earlier, the accused in the crime have approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.7505 of 2021, however, the same was dismissed on 03.04.2023, granting liberty to them to file an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., to be represented by a counsel and the same shall be considered by the trial Court, by imposing certain cond
