THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4301 OF 2025

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in SC.SPL.No.1 of 2022 on the file of Special Sessions Court (for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases at Nalgonda. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 447, 427, 504 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 3 (1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short SC/ST Act).

2. The facts of the case are that the defacto complainant-2nd respondent lodged a report on 02.10.2021 stating that he is working as Supervisor under one Munagala Mahipal Reddy who is having Ac.10.10 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.53, 54 and 55 of Kothulapuram Revenue Village. On 01.10.2021 at about 06.30 hours he collected milk at Gudimalkapuram Village and reached the outskirts of Kothulapuram Village, he saw the villagers i.e., A.1 to A.4 ploughing the agricultural land of his master Mahipal Reddy with a tractor. When he went there and questioned them, the said persons abused the complainant in filthy language and insulted in the name of his caste as “Mala Vada” and also damaged the boundary stones. As such, requested the police to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the said complaint, police registered a case against the accused for the said offences and filed charge sheet.

3. Heard Sri B.Venkat Rama Naidu, learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State. None appeared on behalf of the 2^nd respondent even though notice is served.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein is accused No.2 and he is the owner of property which was acquired from his father. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that it is an agricultural land whereas, the investigating officer has stated that it is a venture and there is no document filed by the 2^nd respondent and the investigating officer has not collected any document to prove that the 2^nd respondent’s master is the owner of the subject property. Lw.2 statement shows that petitioner herein ploughed the land of 2nd respondent nearby Gold Mine venture, that itself shows that there is no truth in the complaint. As such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that after thorough investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet. As such, it requires adjudication and prayed this Court to dismiss this petition.

6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with others entered into the property of 2^nd respondent’s master and ploughed the land and when the 2^nd respondent questioned about the same, petitioner abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste. There is no eye witness to prove the same and no evidence is collected by the investigating officer. The document filed by the petitioner shows that petitioner is having ownership over the land and if at all there is interference by the petitioner herein, the owner of property has to file civil suit. Hence, there is no material to continue, as such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitoner-A.2 in SC.SPL.No.1 of 2022 on the file of Special Sessions Court (for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases at Nalgonda are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

________________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 29.07.2025

Rds