THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4541 OF 2025

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against him in SPL.S.C.No.222 of 2024 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 296(b), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act.

2. The facts of the case are that the complainant-2^nd respondent, a member of the Yerukala community, reported that he purchased 20 guntas of land from Palvancha Devanna prior to 2002. However, his adjacent landowner, Shivarathri Swamy-petitioner herein, has been trying to occupy his land for a long time. On 26.09.2024, at 2:00 pm, while the complainant was surveying his land with the Mandal Tahsildar and their staff, Shivarathri Swamy came and abused him in filthy language, in the name of his caste keeping the land disputes in mind. It is also alleged that petitioner threatened the complainant to kill him. The complainant claimed that the accused's behavior caused him fear, leading to a delay in reporting the matter. As such, requested that necessary action be taken against the petitioner according to the law. Basing on the said complaint, case was registered against the petitioner for the said offences.

3. Heard Sri Dasi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State and Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police should not have registered a crime against the petitioner. During the investigation, the Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar, who was present during the alleged incident, was examined by the police but did not support the prosecution's case. The official staff member of the Tahsildar, examined as LW7, also did not corroborate the alleged incident. He further contended that the alleged incident did not occur as alleged by the 2nd respondent and that the witnesses, LW2 and LW3, have civil disputes with the petitioner. The other witnesses are allegedly yes-men of LWs.2 and 3. The petitioner accuses the 2^nd respondent of taking advantage of their caste to file complaints against the petitioner and color civil disputes as criminal cases to wreck vengeance.

5. Learned counsel further contended that there is no explanation why the 2^nd respondent did not report the alleged incident to the police on the same day itself, that the complaint was filed as a counterblast to the civil litigation pending between the parties. The petitioner filed records showing that a civil suit in O.S.No.226 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet is pending between the petitioner and LW2 regarding the subject land. It is further argued that the investigation officer examined all witnesses on the same day, and they are interested witnesses. The investigation officer failed to collect documentary evidence to prove the 2^nd respondent's possession of the alleged land.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra Vs State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673. The relevant paras read as under :]

“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a crimi