AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Spl.S.C.No.156 of 2022 on the file of learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
Heard Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that notice is served on respondent No.2. In spite of service of notice, none appears for respondent No.2.
The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2-de facto complainant and the accused are well acquainted with each other. It is alleged that there were disputes between LW.2-Nevuri Narsaiah and accused No.2 regarding their joint agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0-16 ½ guntas in Survey No.307 and in this regard, panchayats were held in the presence of elders, but they ended without any resolution. While so, accused No.2 sold his share of land to the father of petitioner-accused No.1. On 12.07.2021 at about 15:30 hours, the accused under the impact of alcohol, stopped the tractor of de facto complainant, while he was ploughing the bushes in the agricultural fields of Nevuri Narsaiah, and abused him in the name of caste and threatened him with dire consequences. Thus, the present case is filed for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offences alleged do not get attracted against the petitioner; that there are disputes between LW.2 and accused No.2 and the petitioner herein is accused No.1, who is not at all concerned with the said dispute; and that the petitioner never abused the de facto complainant in the name of his caste, much less within the public view. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present Spl.S.C. against the petitioner.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the contents of the complaint and the statement of LW.1 clearly disclose the allegations against the petitioner that he abused LW.1 in the name of his caste. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Perused the record.
8. The allegation is that while the de facto complainant was ploughing the land of LW.2, the accused have abused him in the name of caste. The allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The statement of LW.1 also point out the said offences. The statement of LW.4, who is the mother of accused No.2 and LW.2, discloses about the land disputes between accused No.2 and LW.2. LWs.2 and 3 are listed as eye-witnesses. The veracity of these witnesses needs to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the present Spl.S.C. against the petitioner. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial Court provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever his presence is required during the course of trial.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.