Allowed

Kasarla Chandra Reddy, Nalgonda and 2 Othrs., v. Gampala Soundarya, Nalgonda and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC24 Jun 2022CRLP/15916/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings regarding offences under the Prevention of Atrocities Act and IPC. The Court held that allegations were bald and did not attract the ingredients of the offences, constituting an abuse of process arising from a civil land dispute.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in Crime No. 163 of 2013 filed at Atmakur (S) Police Station, Nalgonda District, were quashed.

Kasarla Chandra Reddy, Nalgonda and 2 Othrs., Vs Gampala… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15916 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kasarla Chandra Reddy, S/o. Satti Reddy, Rl/o. Nemmikal Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶8

Kasarla Venkat Reddy, S/o. Satti Reddy, R/o. Nemmikal Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

Kasarla Veera Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, R/o. Nemmikal Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Gampala Soundarya, Wo. Amrutha Rao, Fl/o. Nemmikla Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The State of A.P., rept. bythe Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 163 of 2013 of Atmakur (S) Police Station, Nalgonda District.

¶16

CRL.P.MP. NO: 14268 OF 2013

¶17

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crime No. 163 of 2013 of Atmakur (S) Police Station, Nalgonda District.

t {^i!

i iii:

{ T 1 1l

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C. Sharan Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and of Sri P. Venkanna, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE A.SANTHOSI{ REDDY

¶24

CRI,.P No.15916 OF 2013

¶25

ORDF],R:

¶26

This criminal petition is filed under Secrion 482 C_'r.p.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A- l to A-3 in Cr.No. 163 of 2013 of Atmakur (S) Police Station, Nalgontla District, registered for the offences under Sections 323. 50(r tpC and Section 3(l) (x) ofthe Scheduled Casres and Schedulcd l'ribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I 989 (for short 'the Act')

¶27

l]eard both sides. Perused the record.

¶28

l-he first respondent/complainant alleged in her conrplaint that she had some parcel of land along with her villagcrs viz., Gampala Kristamma, Gampala Kantamma, Perant Mariyarnnta, Peram Sujzina and Gampala Annamma. There is a dispute bctrvee n them and her villagers i.e., petitioners/A- I to A-3 ovcr the land and a case is pending before the court of law. When the pctirioners are tryrng to construct a compound wall, the first respondent we nt there to stop same, the accused abused them by taking thcir caste in lilthy language and they also even kicked thern rvith legs.

¶29

¶30

They also even tried to kill them with the help of sticks. Based on the said conrplaint, the^police registered a case in^{Cr.No. 163} of 20 I 3 and taken up investigation.

¶31

'[he learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allcgations in the F.l.R., do not attract any of the ingredients olthe oflence under Section 3(i)^(x) ol the Act, besides other offences. Learned counsel furthcr contends that due to civil disputes between the parties, as a counter blast. the^present complaint^{is foistedand} continuation of procecdings against the^{petitioners/A-} I^{to A-3} would be nothing but abuse of process of law. He^{prayed for} quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A- I to A-3 C.C.No.20l of20l6.

¶32

On thc other hand. the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contcnds that there is sulficient rnaterial^{againstthe petitioners} attracting thc ingredicnts of cognizable offbnces and^the invcstigating agency may be permitted to^proceed with^the investigation. She prays to dismiss the petition.

¶33

¶34

A perusal of the complaint discloses that when the

¶35

petitioncrs were trying to construct a compound wall, the first respondent and others went there to stop the same. There, the petitioners abused them in filthy language by taking the name of their caste and kicked them with legs and also abused them as they like. The first respondent has not specifically mentioned as to what was the language used by the petitioners and she only rnentioned that they abused them by taking the name ol- their castc. The said allegations did not attract any of the ingredients of the ollencc under 3(l)(x) of the Act. The next offence alleged is under Section 506 IPC. There is no threat made by the petitioncrs and only a bald allegation is leveled against them that they tried to kill them. lrurthermore, there are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners in respect of the offence under Section 323 IPC. -l'he only allegation made against the petitioners is that they kicked them r.vith lcgs.^'[he said allegations are bald and too gencral in nature Since there is no prima facie material attracting the ingredients ot'the ollences alleged against the petitioners hcrein. continuation ol'thc proceedings would be nothing but abuse of'

¶36

¶37

process of law and no useful purpose would be served by driving the petitioners to face prosecution and it would certainly amount to harassment to the petitioners to undergo the rigour of trial. It is, therefore, considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-l ro A-3 in Cr.No.l63 of 2013.

¶38

The crirninal petition is, accordingly, allowed. The proceedings against the petitioncrs/A-l to A-3 in Cr.No.163 of 2013, on thc file Atmakur (S) Police Station, Nalgonda District, are hereby quashed.

¶39