THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1498 of 2023

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 324, 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 conditions, without hindrance to the trial.

4.4. According to the complaint, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out. Furthermore, when it is alleged that all the petitioners have abused t