Allowed

Vainala Ramesh, Warangal Dist. and Ano v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Telangana HC7 Feb 2022CRLRC/1696/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Revision filed against a First Class Magistrate's order issuing non-bailable warrants. The court found the trial court's order unsustainable as it issued warrants without summons and ignored police findings that the case was based on a civil dispute and false allegations against the accused.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, in Crl.M.P.No.1094 of 2015 in P.R.C.No.21 of 2015 dated 30.06.2015 is set aside.

Vainala Ramesh, Warangal Dist. and Ano Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

C RIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1696 OF 20'15

¶6

Criminal Revision case Under Section 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C against^the docket order.Crl.M.P.No.1094 ot 2015 in Crime No.15 of 2012^{in PRC No.21 of} 2015 on the file of the Court of the Vl^{Addl. JudicialFirst ClassMagistrate,} Wa ra nga l.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vainala Ramesh, S/o. Edappa, aged 43^years, R/o. H.No.2-11-259,^Shankar Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District

¶9

V ainala Chandramouli, S/o. Edappa, aged^{45 years, Rl/o. H.No.2-11-259,} Shankar Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District

¶10

.PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at^Hyderabad

¶13

Sandagalla Ramesh, S/o. Rajaiah, aged 41^{years, R/o. H.No.1-116/1} , Bheemaram Village, Komatipally Gram Panchayat,^{Hasanparthylr4andal,} Warangal District.

¶14

..RESPON DENTSiCOM PLAI NANT

¶15

CRLRCMP. NO:2688 OF 2015

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances state in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision^{Case,the High Court} may be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings in} PRC^{No.21ol 2015 on the file} of the Vl Additional Judicial Ir,4agistrate of^First Class at^{Warangalincluding} NBW's, pending disposal of the criminal^petition.

¶17

IANO:1^OF2018

¶18

Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P C prayingthat in the} circumstances the High^Court state^{in the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Revision Case'} passed bY^this may^{be pleased May be pleasedto extend the interim orders} of 2015^dated Hon'ble^{Courtin Crl'RC MP'No'2688 of 2015 in Crl RC No 1696} 21-OB-2015^{until further orders'}

¶19

IA NO :2^OF2021

¶20

¶21

in the^{circumstances} Petition^{under Section 482 of Cr'P C praying that} Case, the^{High Court} state^{in the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Revision} ich was^{granted in} may be^{pleased toextend the interim orderswh} nting^{stay in all further} CRI.MP^{No'2688of 2015 in CRL RC No 1696 of 2015 gra} re the^{learned Vl Addl'} proceedings^{in PRC No 21 of 2015whichis pending befo} sal of^{main CRI RC} Judicial^{First ClassMagistrate at Warangal'pending dispo}

¶22

This^{Petition comingon for hearing' upon perusingthe tvlemorandumof} Grounds^{of Criminal Re'ision Case and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri G V'} L. Murthy,^{Advocatefor the Petitioner and of the Assistant PublicProsecutor} (TG) on^{behalf of the Respondent No'1 and of Sri R' K Chitta'Advocatefor the} ResPondent^{No 2'}

¶23

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶24

{

¶25

THE HON,BLE^{DT. JUSTICECHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶26

¶27

CRIMINAL^{REVISIONCASE No'1696 of 2O15}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Crimina-l^{Revision Case is filed challengingthe} orderoftheCourtofVlAdditionalJudicialMagistrateof First Class,^{Warangal,inCrl'M'P'No' 1094 of 2015 in} P.R,C.No.21^{of 2015. The Accusedin the above P'R'C'have} challenged the^{said order'}

¶30

Heard the^{submissions of learned counsel for the} petitioners and^{also thelearned AssistantPublic} Prosecutor,^{who represents Respondent No'1'Learned} counsel on^{record for respondent No'2 oo Ol'O2'2O22 made} a submission^{across the Bench that respondentNo'2} intends to^{engage another counsel and submit his} contention^{and hence requested to granttime ' The said} request^{was honoured and the matter is posted to this day'} duiy making^{a mention that in case respondent No'2 fails} tosubmithiscontentionsonthisday,orderswouldbe

¶31

pronounced basing on the merits of the case. Hou'ever, respondent No.2 fails to submit his contention.

¶32

The version of respondent No.2 is that^the petitioners/ Accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 r/w. Section 34^{of IPC and} aiso under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes^and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,^1989.The petitioners state that they have not committed any offence.

¶33

The series of events that ultimately 1ed to the^present revision case are narrated in seriatim for^better appreciation.

¶34

a) On 07 .Ol.2OI2, respondent No.2^{(hereinafter be} referred to as "complainant" for the sake of^{convenienceof} discussion) had filed a private complaint^{before the Court} of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal,^{against the} petitioners (hereinafter be referred to as^"Accused" for^the sake of convenience of discussion).

¶35

b) The said complaint n'as foru-arded to the^Waral-rga1 Urban Police.

¶36

c) Police registered a case against the^Accused in^Crime No.15 of 2072 for the offences punishable under^Sections

¶37

Dr. CSL,J .) Crl.RC.No.l696 of20l5

¶38

427, 447, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and also Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on20.Ol.2Ol2.

¶39

d) On O8.O5.2013 they filed Final Report by referring the case as false.

¶40

e) Dissatisfied with the said Final Report,^the complainant filed a protest petition.

¶41

f) Based on the sworn statement of the complainant and also the statements of the u,itnesses he^{produced, the} Court of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First^Class, Warangal, came to a conclusion that the complainant could make out primafacle case against^{the Accusedfor the} offences punishable under Sections^{427, 447, 506 r/w.} Section 34 of IPC and also Section^{3(1)(x) of Scheduled} Castes and Scheduled Tribes^{(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,} 1989 and issued Non-bailable^{warrants againstthe} Accused through order dated^30.06.2015in Crl.M.P.No. lO94 of 2015.^{The said order, as earlierstated,} is under challenge now.

¶42

Thus, in the light of the aforesaid^{factual scenario,} the point that arises for consideration^{is :}

¶43

Whether tLtere exists ang^{justifi"able grounds} to set aside the order^{of the Court of VI} Additional Judicial Magistrate^{of First Class,} Warangal, in Crl.M.P.No.1094^{of 2015 in}

¶44

¶45

"1 C .RC.N0 Dr 1696 CsL,Jol'1015

¶46

P.R.C.No.21 of 2015, dated 30.O6.2O15, as praged for?

¶47

Making an elaborate submission, learned counsel for the Accused stated that around 16 to 17 uitnesses riere examined by police after registration of case. A1l the witnesses stated that no incident, S projected by the complainant, has happened. Therefore, they referred the case as false. Dissatisfied with the Final Report filed by the police, the complainant filed a protest petition The said petition was honoured by the Court below, which is most unjustifiable. Learned counsei further submits that there was a civil dispute betu,een the Accused and the complainant. When the Accused u,ere trying to establish their right by knocking the doors of Civil Court, the Complainant, by making false allegations, has approached the Criminal Court and thereby sought to put a check against the Accused. Thus subjected the Accused to much inconvenience and hardship.

¶48

7 . Supporting the above contention to some extent, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that none of the

¶49

) Dr. CSLJ Crl.RC No.l696 of 2015

¶50

\ritnesses examined by the police supporte d the averments in the complaint and after examining and recording the statements of as many as 19 witnesses, the case was referred as false. But the Comp lainant again approached the Criminal Court by filing the pr ULest petition.

¶51

¶52

B. The averments in the compla1nt goes to show that the Complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of plot i admeasuring 469-44 Sq. yards'J in old Sv.No.1 1 of .li Lashkarsingaram Revenue Vittage, situared at T Vidyaranyapuri, Hanumakonda, Wlrangal District, and he L intended to raise a compound f wall around the said property. On 28.12.2O11 when he visited the said property, he found the Accused and others in the said property. He found them removing the boundary stones. When he tried ,l to resist the said illegal act, the Accused and their^men enquired about the na-rne ol the complainant, his residential particulars and caste and thereafter abused him { in the name of his caste. It is also narrated in^the I complaint that the Accused are infiliential^{persons and one} x of them is rvorking as a Police Constable.

¶53

T 0

¶54

¶55

Dr. CSL,J 6 Crl.RC.No.l696^ol-2015

¶56

g . Submitting his contentions^{withregard tothe} l contents of the complairit,^{learned counselfor the Accused} stated that the Accused^{a-re the absolute owners of the} disputed property^{and they tried to establish their right by} approaching the Civil^{Court and they never tried to attack} the Complainant by^{resorting the muscle power' Learned} counsel also stated^{that the Accusedhave purchasedthe} property in question inithe^{year 1997 and the versionof} the Complainant is^{that'he purchasedthe said property in} the year 2010 and,^{therefore,the Complainanthas to} workout his remedies^{against his vendor by approaching} the competent Civil^{Court and rvithout doing so, he filed} the complaint against^{the Accusedonly with an intention} to bring them to his^{terms. The learned counsel also stated} that Accused No.2^{filed a Civil Suit i'eO'S'No'1353 of} 2OIl which^{stood pending before the Court ofVII} ,t Additional Junior^{Civil Judge, Warangal,and a decreewas} passed in his favour.^{He'also submittedthat Accused No'1} also filed a Civil Suit^{i'e. O'S'No.1351 of 2011, which stood} pending on the file of^{the Court of VII Additional Junior}

¶57

I itr , il Dr. csl,r ' crt.RC.No. t696 or2ol5 lh iti Civil Judge, Warangal, and a deffee was^passed in his il' favour. Learned counsel also statld that those two suits I' were filed against the vendor of thelpomplainant' rl. 1' 10. A perusal of the copies of the^{decrees filed reveals} justification in the submission m,3de in that regard ' As i rightly projected, enquiring abdpt the^{narne ofthe} ; Complainant, his residential^par{icuiars ,l^{and 'casteand} l, thereafter abusing in the name of; his caste, at the same I i; time, as averted in his comPlaint decomes highly doubtful. ,t. A perusal of the order^of the^Court VI Additional Judicial lPf Magistrate of First C1ass,^{War{iSat, which is under} chaiienge goes to show that^the liearned^{Judgehas not} i, discussed any thing about^{the me'rits of the case and he} 1 did not even state the^{reasons foricoming to a conclusion} that the case has to^{be proceeded} l:^{against the Accused} despite a clear finding^{by police that the complaint given by} i the Complainant is false.^{In the Einal Reportfiled by the} ri police, they made a clear^{mentiorL,lthattheir investigation} J reveals that Accused^{Nos.1 and 2} i:urchased^{96 Sq' yards} I and 193 Sq. yards,^{respectivelY,} and got the^Deeds I !, ,:: ,l :i n :'r ,i t. r l,

¶58

j I li

¶59

Dr. CSL,I 8 Crl.RC.No.l696 of20l5

¶60

registered. They^also -{d.^{,mention that on 28'12'2oll} i the Compiainant^{along iwith others went to the disputed} site and started^{makingl marking and AccusedNo'1 came} i to know about the^{samd; rushed there and obstructedthe} workers of the ComplJinant.^{It is also stated that no} witnesses corroborated^{ti're version ol the Compiainant that} the Accused abused^{thJ Complainantin the name of his} caste and criminally^{trespassed into his land lt is also} mentioned that the^{Complainanttried to grab 'the land} from the^{possession of the Accusedand he filed the private} : complaint with^{unconcerned and untrue allegations' When} I the observations^{of the police are thus, the learned Judge} of the triat Court^{ought to have atleast made a mentionas} to why, despite the^{said finding, he is inclinedto proceed} against the Accused.

¶61

1 1. Learned counsel^{for the Accused, while submitting} his contention,^{also pointedout that the learnedJudge of} the trial Court, only^{with an intention to l'ash up his} hands, has taken^{cognlzance.He further submitted that} I after entertaining^the P^{otest petition,it r.t'as mandatefor}

¶62

9 Dr CSL,J Crl.RC.No.l696 of20l5

¶63

the learned Judge to issue summ o s for appearance of the Accused. But for the reasons bes own, he issued Nonbailable warrants against the Accu d

¶64

A perusal of the order, wh is under challenge, reveals that the learned Judge o the trial Court issued Non-bailable warrants against th Accused. The reasons l{,i for issuing Non-bailable vrarr-Ants without issuing lr summons for appearance of the A cused is not mentioned any'rvhere. That apart, by the d cussion that rvent on supra, it is clear that to set a civil dispute, the Complainant has chosen the me od of approaching the Criminal Court by filing a private omplaint and to bring the Accused to his terms. This can ot be entertained. Even on merits, the order under chal nge is unsustainable. Therefore, this Court is of the w that the said order a requires to be set aside, prayed for by the : t1 p etitioners / Accused. 1 3. Resultantly, this Criminal Rer.rsion Case is al1owed. The order passed by the Court of VI Additional Judicial i Magistrate of First C1ass, Wara.,gdi, i., Crl.M.P.No.1094 of

¶65

¶66

Dr. CSL,J 10 Crl.RC.No.l696 of20l5

¶67

2015 in P.R.C.No.21 2015, dated 30.06.2015 is^set

¶68

aside.

¶69

As a sequel, mi llaneous applications pending, if

¶70

any, shalt stand closed.

¶71

SD/.CH.VENKATESHWARU LU DEPUTY RE STRAR //TRUE COPYII

Lat

To,

SECTION OFFICER

' ('*i^'r:tirttionalJudicia I First class Masistrate, Waransa r. 2. The Station House'Officer,.p.S..KUC (Law & Order), Warangal. 9. 9n"^{cc to Sri G. v. L. wuhrry,} Ad;o;;i;iblubj"' 1. 9n"^{CC to Sri R. K. Chirta,} niiuocat" ib"piicr"-, " ,lyf"ffit"l:^{the Public Prosecutor, t-ligh couft for the state} of reransana at 6. Two CD Cooies 7. One Spare bopy gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710212022

ORDER

1t\ E sTA
oo 1 ? HAY 2il22
v
?

¶82

CRL.R.C.No.1 696 of 2015

¶83

ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C CrPltb &

Vainala Ramesh, Warangal Dist. and Ano v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vainala Ramesh, Warangal Dist. and Ano v. P.P., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Asritha Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd., Hyd., Vs D.v.N.Santosh Kumar, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Kajjam Veeresham and 3 Others Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Katta Balwanth Reddy, and 2 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Ingu Rajeshwari, Adilabad Dt and 2 Otrs., Vs Narla Srinivas, Adilabad Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Smt. K.Nagar Lakshmi, Vs Rachana Jaiswal

J. Sunitha, Hyd and 2 Others Vs State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.