AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since the petitioners in both these petitions are seeking to quash proceedings in PRC No.233 of 2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur, they are being heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Order.
Criminal Petition No.10472 of 2013 is preferred by A5 and Criminal Petition No.11470 of 2013 is preferred by A1 in PRC No.233 of 2013 on the file of XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur, in which charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.
Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/1st respondent is that his father and brothers owned land in Sy.Nos.9 and 10 of Gayathri Nagar, which was divided into plots. On 20.02.2013 at 5.15 p.m, when the defacto complainant, his father, and elder brother and three others while attending to drainage work in the said plots, the petitioners herein and others went to the said plots and abused as “Era Erukala lanjakodukullara kulam thakkuva naa kodukullara entha dhairyam unte meru maa bhoomiloki vastharra’ and also beat them with hands and stones, for which reason, the defacto complainant received grievous injuries on his head and also his father and elder brother and wife also received head injuries. The Police, Sanathnagar registered the said crime and after investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a false case is filed against the petitioners for the reason of civil disputes in between A2 to A4 and the defacto complainant (A2 to A4 are not parties before this Court). The said suit was filed as O.S No.110 of 2012 by A2 to A4 against defacto complainant. Defacto complainant’s family in turn filed OS No.942 of 2012 against A2 to A4. Both the cases are pending adjudication. A2 to A4 filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police on 15.01.2013 and requested to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the dispute of the land. However, to intimidate the petitioners, false complaint is filed. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P 2009 Cri.L.J 350 and held that when basic ingredients of the offences are lacking, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 can be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/defacto complainant submits that at this stage, this Court cannot verify the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, as such, the case cannot be quashed.
As seen from the evidence on record, admittedly, there are pending civil disputes in between the complainant’s family and the accused, A2 to A4. On the alleged date of incident, it is stated that these petitioners along with A2 to A4 and others trespassed into the land where the defacto complainant and his family members were working. An altercation has ensued resulting in injuries to five witnesses, who are L.Ws.1 to 5 enlisted in the memo of evidence by the prosecution. The prosecution has further examined two independent witnesses and also treating Doctor. The medical certificates are filed to show that there are injuries.
It is not the case of mere utterances of words attracting consequences under SCs & STs Act. These petitioners and others are allegedly trespassed and beaten the defacto complainant and his family members, who are five in number. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted prima facie. As already stated supra, there are grievous injuries on five persons. The defence version can be putforth during trial by cross examining witnesses. Whether the acts of petitioners are deliberate or not can be decided after trial.
There are no merits in these petitions for quashing the proceedings at the threshold, accordingly both these Criminal Petitions are dismissed.