Allowed

Adi Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLP/10572/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings against two petitioners accused under the SC/ST PoA Act and IPC for forgery and attempted fraud. The court held that vague caste-based allegations without investigation evidence, delay in lodging complaints, and lack of documentary proof rendered the continuation of proceedings an abuse of process o

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in S.P. S.C. No. 79 of 2017 pending against the petitioners were quashed; petitioners are acquitted; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Adi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

(i,ffi '!w i.1.8 . 'iii '-:-jl.:"r trt.' , i.r}'+' r#;i i-a#t '.;tsr;: €+;* 1J+j",r'j .: :."

¶2

,t' kr ,i$J. -,1; r'i: j- 'ia. :- ..!{:. i'..ii : ''.+1*. '.4. 'tli. .: ,.':{:

¶3

:'^.. tj:. .#-, ;ffi:. #;-:. ffi$, ffir' '-tS: .:i"' ,; -. ,+..

¶4

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

MONDAY ,THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶8

CRIMINAL PETtTtoN 10s7 2 0F 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ad_i sriniv_as, s/o. Govindu,.aged sz.years, occ. Agricurture, R/o Rudrarigi Mlla.ge,_Chandurthi Mandal, presenfl! residing at-VemutiwaOJ, na;anna Sircilla District.

¶11

Poddupodup_u L]nga Reddy, S/o Raja Gangaram, aged 50 years. Occ. Agriculture, R/o Rudrangi vd., chandurthi Mandar, n{an-na sircittd oistrict.^-

¶12

AND

¶13

....PET|T|ONERS/ACCUSED

¶14

The State of.Tela.ngana, Rep. by its^public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and S-tate of Andhra Pradesh, tlyd.erabad through Sub-Divisional p6lice Officer, Rajanna Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶15

Kadasu Narsaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, aqed 55 vears. Occ. Coolie. Caste. Madioa. RJo Rudrangi Vg., Chandurthy Mandat, Rdjanna Sircilla District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the Charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.79 ot ZO177n the fite of special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Offences under SC and STs (pOA) Act at Karimnagar which was filqd basing on the complaint filed by the^'Respondent No.2-and olhers alleging the offences under Section 42O1pC, Sections 3(1XG), 4 and 6 of SC/ST(POA) Act 1989 to secure the ends of justice as the same is abuse of process of law and the court

¶18

l.A. 1 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 4B2 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Cou( may be pleased that the interim order granted by this Honble Court oi zOtZl2O1g.in crl.P.No. 10572 ot 2018 granting stay of triat in cc No. 79 of 2011 on the file of special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Offences under SC and STs (pOA) Act at Karimnagar may be extended until further orders pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition

'ffii

ii I t

! i

-cXt€:ffi r,i'r. ffi' ':4F.,.-l!:

¶25

t.A. 2 2018

¶26

Petition under section 492 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of cri;in;r Fetition, tn" niln co,i."y'Spf [^{01-eas99 to pass appropriate ordersfor amendment} of case nirO"i-"L SC. No. 79 of 2017 on the fire of the spr sessions Judge for the hair or orenc-J" under sc and sr (poA) Act at Karimnagar irrstead of dc. ruo. zs oi zori wheie ever it is mentioned in the above quash petition

¶27

l.A. 1 2018

¶28

Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminil Fetition, tne High cou.t mav be pl.eased to grant stay of a[ further proceeoings in spr. s.c. No. 7s ot 2tii on the file of special sessions Judge foi the Triaiof offences under sc .no si, (PoA) Act at Karimnagar pending disposal of the above criminar petition

¶29

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar^petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri v RoHrrH ,Advocate for the^petitioners and the Additional pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri ANAN'I'H NAGESHWAR RAo RARSA, Advocate for the .Respondent No. 2

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

-8.. Fil

¶32

I t,

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶34

CRfMINAL PETITION No. 10572 of ZOLB

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

1 . The present Cr-iminal Petition is filed under Se ctio n 482 ot thc Code of Criminal Procedure (in short^,Cr.p.C,) by the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 sceking to quash the crinrinal

¶37

proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.79 of 2Ol7 on the file of thc Special Sessions Judge for trial of offenccs under thc Scl.red uled Castc and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at Karimnagar, arising out of Crime No.44 of 2.016 of Chandurth_y Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for r.he offences punisl-rable under Section 42O ol the Indian Penal Code, 1860 arrd Sccrrons 3 (t ) (g), 4 and 5 of the Scheduled Castc and Scheduteci'lrii.>c' (Pr.cvcntion of Atrocities) .{ct, 1989.

¶38

The sum and substancc of tlrc case of the prosecution is ttral. the de .facto complainant and other-s, who are his cars:te mcnrbers allcgedly arc in possession of land to an e\Lent of Ac.2 l9 guntas in S)/.No.381 situated at Rudrangi Village . Chandurth.T Mandal, Karimnagar District, prescntlv Rajanna Sircilla District. Acr:ording to the:n, ou,ner ol thc said la.nd x; one Mir;-al:r Gangar Rat'. The complainairt and orhers allegedlv gave sen,ices to s;rid \4 iryala Ganga Rao, as such thc, .(ro in occt.lpation o[ szrid l:rr-rcl. In the -1,ear 2OOB, r,uhile acctrscd |tro.1^."r,urs Cha.irmarr oi Sr-i ltaja

¶39

¶40

Rajeshu,ara^{Swamy Temple,Vetnulawadzr' with apromiseto} construct^{Indirammahouses ibr the de facto complainant and his} men,madettlemtosignonsomepapersbycallingthemtohis house.^{Subsequently,such docutnents wcre allegedl'ymisused for} disclaiming^{the right of the signatories over the iand intheir} possession.^{Accordingly, the saictland was dishonestlyregistered} in the name^{of accused No'2, who is the follower of accused No' 1'} In this regal-d,^{trre de} facto^{complainantand othersapproached} accused^{No.1 and he proclaimerl that he has done such a thing} sincc they^{havenot voted for him' Later on' accused No'2 made} attempts^{to tay plots in the said land' which is atlegedlyin the} possessiotr ol^{the d'e} facto^{compleinantand his men Whentine de} facto^{complarnantand his merr went to asl< accusedNo lu ith} regarcl^t o said^{lancl,he allegedty abused them statiirgthat thev} should not^{ask for land as they belong to Madigacommunityand} that they^{vote for money' In this regard'on 1O'06 2016 alsothe} de facto complainant^{and his Inen went to accused No 1 and he} again^{abused them.Therefore,the present criminalproceedings} are initiated^{against the accused'}

¶41

It is the contention 'lf^{thelearned counsel forthe} petitioners / accused^{Nos land 2tkrat no materialhas been} produced to shou' that^{the ac<:usedhaveobtained anv signatures}

'l.3 if?;'. ii-;J',

I t r

on papers and such papers have been used for dispossessing them from the land. According to him, accused No.2 purchased Iand which belongs to one Miryala Laxmikantha Rao, who is the brother of Miryala Ganga Rao and the accused have nothing to do with land of Miryala Ganga Rao. Further, the land of Miryala Ganga Rao is still in possession of Miryala Ganga Rao. According to him, the allegation of abusing in the name of caste was initially not mentioned in the complaint and the same was subsequently improvised, which cannot be made founctation for the offence.

¶46

It is the contention of the learned counsel for responclent Nc.2l de facto compiainant that the oral statements of the n'itnesses clearl-v demonstrates that the accused ailegedly indr_rced the de facto cornplainant and his men to sign on white papers and the same rvere used for disciaiming rights of th e de facto complainant and his men. Apart from that there are altegations of abuse in the name of caste. Therefore, this Court cannot go into thc said aspects in the present proceedings.

¶47

Learned Adciitional Public prosecutor opposed the quashment of the r:riminal proceedings.

¶48

The cornplainr discloses that accused No. I ir-r the year 200[3 allegedly incluced the rle .factocomplainant anC Jris men to sigrr on

¶49

¶50

papers, with a promise to construct Indira:nrna houses for^them. Such document was used to relinquish^{the rights} of^{the de} facto complaiirant and his men^{ovei: th,: land, which they were in} possession and used the said document^{for sale of said lald'}

¶51

The unimpeachable documents i.e., the^{adangals collected} during the course of investigation^{cl.early demonstrate that there} are three owners in Sy.No.381 i.e., Miryala Laxmikantha^Rao, Miryala Ganga Rao and Miryala Narayana Rao,^{who are all} brothers. They are^{joint pattedars} of land in^{Sy.No.381 and each} of them acquired Ac.2-19 Suntas. These are entered^inthe revenue records and the satne is not disputed.^{The claimof} accused No.2 is in respect of Sy.Nc.381 to an extent of^Ac.2-19 gulltas relating to property of Miryrtla Laxmikantha Rao.^Even, the adangals clearll' shon, that the^{tvliryala GangaRao holds Ac.2-} 19 guntas. Out ol that he sold out^{l).O4Yzgu.ntasof} land^{to some} other party and he is still in^possession of Ac.2-04r2^guntas. Mirya1a Laxmikantha Rao has nothing to do with land of^Miryala Ganga Rao and his^possession is made out from the^revenue records,^which is of sterling and unirnpeachable character.

¶52

As seen from the investigatic,n, absolutely no record has been collected [o shou,that the accused have obtained signatures of ttre de facto complainant and that such signed papers^were r(i

¶53

¶54

¶55

used to forfeit the rights of executants. There is no explanation found from the entire investigation, in this regard. Without such document, making bald allegations that the accused have obtained signatures on papers and made use of the same has to be tested. Further, there is also delay in reporting the incident i.e., the incident of taking signatures occurred in the year 2008 and the complaint before police was filed in the year 2016. The investigation also failed to make out the existence of such document. These details prove improbability of pleas set up by the de focto complainant.

¶56

[t is clear even from the complaint and statement that thc,v do not, demcnstrate clispossessiort of de facto complainant and^his merr from the property in Sy.No.381. It is the case of the de facto complainan[ and his men that they lvere dispossessed from the land u,hich is in the name of Miryala Ganga Rao. That means, Miry212 Ganga Rao is in possession of his land. If they^are dispossessed from anything, it must be the land of Miryala^Ganga Rao ald rrot Miryala Laxmikantha Rao. The revenue records^are unimpeat:hable and the,y can be foundation and can be^relied Lrpon.

¶57

The allegation relating to the abuse in the name of caste^is /ague and such allcgations are trot referl ed in the lrirsl

¶58

¶59

.,+

¶60

Information^{Report lodgedby t|re de facto complainantagainstthe} accused. In^{the said backgrourtd' continuation of criminai} proceedings^{and conducting trral against the accusedu'ould be} nothing but^{abuse of processof lawAccordingly' this Court is of} the opinion^{that thepetitioners/accused are entitledfor} quashment^{of criminalproceedings against them ald the present} petition is^{liable to be allowcd'}

¶61

in the^{result, the CriminalPetitionis allowed and the} criminal^{proceedir-rgsirr SpI S C'No '79 of 2Ol7 on the file of the} Special^{Sessions Judge for trial of offencesunder the Scheduled} CasteandScheduledTribe(PreuentionofAtrocities)Actat Karimnagar,^{pending agair-rst thc accused/petilioners hereinare} quashed and^thc accused /^petitioners are acquitted. Miscelianeous^{petitionspending, if any' shall stand closed'}

¶62

Sd/4.PRAVEEN KI.iTTIAR ASSISTANT ISTRAR

//TRUE CC}PY/'

sEcTtoN oFFtcER

To,

The special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Offences under SC and STs (pOA) Act at Karimnagar District

¶67

The station House officer, Boinpalli^police station Boinpalli Karimnagar District

¶68

One CC to SRI V ROHITH Advocate [OpUCl

¶69

One CC to SRI ANANTH NAGESHWAR RAO RARSA, Advocate tOpUCl 5. TWO CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,^-iigh Court for the State'of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶70

Two CD Copies

ffi

ss^-

I r 'ai..111, ..11,

1 i l t, I

HIGH COURT

DATED:,2410712023

ORDER

..--r=::1-:*<br>1 ,;. i ,.-.: <br>, '''l
a
:) \1 $$ 1s
I
t

¶79

CRLP.No.'10572 ot 2018

¶80

i-:,',.":

¶81

ALLOWING^{THE CRIMINALPETITION}

¶82

¶83

{ -.3
\o ;5

Adi Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adi Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

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

Md. Ghouse Vs State of Telangana

Vadthyavath Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Kurva Mallesh , Kurva Mallikarjun Vs The State of Telangna

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Telangana

Srinivas Chilakeshwaram Vs The State of Telangana

Badavath Kishan Vs The State of Telangana