Allowed

M.Raviteja v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jul 2023CRLP/5416/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana quashed criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 9 for alleged caste-based abuse and intimidation. The court held that since alleged threats were uttered within private views and their nature was not specific enough to establish injury or alarm, criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC was not made out.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Special SC No. 2 of 2018 were quashed; Accused Nos. 2 to 9 were discharged for offences under Sections 506 read with 34 of IPC and relevant provisions of SCs & STs (POA) Act.

M.Raviteja Vs the State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2023)

[³²¹⁶¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶8

CRIMINAL PETIT]ON NO: 5416 oF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.RAVITEJA, S/o.Venkatesham, Rt/o.H.No.9-382t1, Railway Station Road, Chityala Village and Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict.

¶11

GANJI tvl4NOJ, S/o.Buchi Ramulu, R/o.Elikatte Village, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶12

GANJI SANTHOSH, S/o.Buchi Ramulu, R/o.Elikatte Viilage, Chityala Mandat, Nalgonda District.

¶13

MIRYALA SATYANARAYANA, S/o.tate Dasharatha, F7o.Nerudu Viilage, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶14

MIRAYALA NARENDER, S/o.M.Satyanarayana, Rl/o.Nerudu Viltage, Chityata Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶15

MIRAYALA SARASWATHT, W/o.M.Venkatesh, Rl/o.Nerudu Viilage, Chityata Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶16

GANJI HARIKA, Wo.Ganji Manoj, R:/o.Elikatte Viilage, Chityala Mandat, Nalgonda District.

¶17

B. MIRYALA SOWMYA, D/o.M.Venkatesham, Fl/o.H.No.9-382/1 . Railwav Station Road, Chityala Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶18

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 9

¶19

¶20

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep.by its Public^prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad.

¶21

.....Respondent

¶22

AMBOTHU, Wo. late A.Balu Naik, Fl/o.Singareni Colony Huts, Saidabad Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad District.

¶23

..,RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶24

Petition under Section 482 ot 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 against the Petitioners/Accused. No.2 to g in Spl.S.C.No.2/2018 pending on the file of Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad-cum-Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs (pOA) Act.

¶25

l.A. NOiJ OF 2018

¶26

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

¶27

pleased to Stay all further proceedings including acp€arance of the Petitio ners/Accur;e !o.2 to 9 in Spl.S.C.No.2l2O1t pen(lir.g c,n the file of Vl Additional Metropc ititn Sessions Judge, Secundera bad_,:rl rn-sgrecia l Judge for trial of Cases undr liCs/STs (POA) Act pending dis rosal c1 th€ above Criminal Petition

¶28

This Petitjon c()ming on for hearing, upon perusinr; t-re lylemorandum of Grounds of crimin r petition and upon hearing the argurn.rnts of sri c.HARr PREETH, Advoczrte fc,r the petitioner and of the Addirionar prrbrir; prosecutor for the state of rerang; r. on beharf of the Respondent Nr.1 arcr Norre Appeared for Respondent No.2.

¶29

The Court made the ;llowing: ORDER

¶30

THE HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE M.I/AXMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5416 of 2o18

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Criminal Petition is filed challenging the Criminal proceedings in Special SC No.O2 of 2018 pending on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act -cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

¶33

The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant is Scheduled Tribe and her husband died Accused No.l came into contact with the complainant and he was not married and led conjugal life with her for the last six months and promised to take care of her welfare and other things. Accused No.l allegedly took Rs.4,O0,0OO/- from the complainant. Since two months, he stopped visiting the house of the victim. On 15.11.2016, when the victim made a call to mobile number of accused No.l, he allegedly abused her in filthy language in the name of caste. On 10.12.2016 in the mid-night at 12.30 hours accused Nos.l to 9 allegedly went to the house of the victim and again abused her in the name of caste and threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, the present complaint is lodged.

¶34

.-4,-,-

¶35

¶36

The cor tr r-rtion rrf learned counsel for Lhc petitioners irccused No,. 2 t<> 9 is that on 15.11.2016 tl're ;rllcgt.d abuse in the name ,lf :ilst-e is over phone and suctr abus(. is not within the public \ e ,v So as to attract the offt:nc e. Sirailarlv, the alleged abus :s .c,n 10. 12.2016 in the nar re of c:aste were not given and er :rr if the,v were uttered they werr: a.[so not in the public vieu'. It is also his contention that ther: Ls no criminal intimidatio n

¶37

Learne d \rlditional Public Prosecutor lllcd r;c^-r,ir:e of notice of complairra .t lnspite of service of notice to con: plainant none appeare<l for he :omplainant.

¶38

Learned <lditional Public Prosecutor rpllorie I the petition b1 contendin ; hat thc abuses u,ere made ovor p-rone and also in the house. Siuch urcts ar() cleariy attracte d t he Sipe:ial Act. It is furthr:r c, ntended that there was crimrnz I in,imidation, wl-rich is sch d uled ofl'ence attracting the provi ;irrns of SCi ST (POA) Act.^'Tl :r'eIbre. he prayed to dismiss he p,:t tion

¶39

A closr: ;c rr,rtinv of thc statement ,rf I.\r' I and other stirtemcr.ts,^-rr: victrm categorically stated th,: abr-rses were made in thr: ame of caste by r-Lsing low castc (l,zimtadi Lanj a)

¶40

¶41

and such allegations were made over phone. To attract the provisions under SC/ST (POA) Act, such abuses must be within the public view, but it is not there. The alleged abuses on 10.12.2016 were also done in the house of the victim and it is also not within the public view. Further, the nature of abuses made in the name of caste was not given in the statements recorded by the police. Therefore, the provisions under the SC/ST (POA) Ait also not attracted for the said incident. Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act is attracted when the scheduled offence is committed.

¶42

7 . In the present case, it is alleged that criminal intimidation which is punishable under Section 506 of IPC was a scheduled offence and such intimidation was allegedly done by the accused when they visited the house of the victim on 10.12.2016. Therefore, the petitioners were Charged. This Court has to see whether such criminal intimidation has been made out from the allegations or not. In this regard, it is apt to refer Section 503 of IPC, which reads hereunder:

¶43

Section 503: Criminal intimidation:- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any onc in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any aci which he is not legatty bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

¶44

¶45

¶46

A reaclrr g ol' the abovr: provision shov,,s ttrirt er .hreat must be to czLusc niury to thc person, reputati()n or Errol^{rerty or any} person inter rsteC. Such threatening mus;t carrs -. alarm^. to the persol-r or t( callse that person to do al1 act w hich he is not legall-v borLr-r I to do or omit to do any ac.-, rvhic-r tLe is legally entitlcd to dr i, n.r act. In the present case, the i leg:,tion is that the threate n^-r11 with dire consequence alor e state.cl. 'lhe nature of threaten r11 is not clel-ailed to assess.^.,rhe ther such threater.ing rterLdecl to cause injury to pe^-son ll r-e putation or his propert,r' 'r aly person interested and v..ithotrt thrlt it cannot be assesserl. V/hether such threatening he s <:realed anv alarm, whicl'r is sjn^q La non for the offence of crinunal intimiclation. From the nrzr e^-ial available on record, suc.t ing^-e ents iire not made out. Therefore, scheduled offencc is not made out. Conscquenth -he criminal olTence under liectic n S{)/ ST (POA) Act for thr: rfience under Section 3(2)(va) is rot attracted. Thereforr:, 111, ;,etition is requtred to be allo'.r,ed

¶47

Accordin lr , the Criminal Petition is zdlrw,:d. The procecdings i L Special SC No.2 of 20 18 p(.nclir-r3 or-r the file of the Special ,-J rclgr: for trial of cases under SCs zrnd STs (POA) Act cum ' {clditional Sessions Judge, Sec r rclerabad are quashcd. Tfrr p,etitioners-acclsed Nos.2 to 9 zre rijscharged for

¶48

¶49

the offences under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IpC and

¶50

Section 3(2)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (pOA) Act.

¶51

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendihg shall stand

¶52

closed.

¶53

Sd/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII @

¶54

¶55

SECTION OFFICER

¶56

1' The spe.cial 'l-rrdge for Triar of scs/ srs (poA) Act -cum- vr Additionar

¶57

^^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderdbad.'}

¶58

The Station House Officer,-Saidabad po-lice Station, Hyderabad ' City. 3. One CC to Sri C.Hari preeth, Advocate tOpUCl''-

¶59

Two ccs to the^pubric prosecutor, High'courf ior the State of rerangana at . Hyderabad (OUT)

¶60

Two CD Copies

I l)

HIGH COURT

DATED:191071202:

. --
r' \
.' .i
: ll
:l'[B
'.: t

¶66

ORDER

¶67

CRLP.No.5416 of 2 18

¶68

ALLOWING THE CF -,O.^-. ,1. L ( ')r' An^Y a\1 \z^)-' ).^t</sup>

M.Raviteja v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Raviteja 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

Yedla Srinaiah(A.2) Vs The State of Telangana and another

Peddagani Chandra Shekar, Vs The State of Telangana

Badugula Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

S. Kamakshaiah And 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Vs Dr.M.Ramana

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Vs Smt.K.Jhansi Rani