Allowed

Allu Rama Narsaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Aug 2023CRLP/6572/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused No.3 seeking to quash proceedings against him. The Court observed that the FIR and witness statements exclusively implicated the land sellers and not the petitioner, holding the lawyer is innocent.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in SC.SPL./258/22 in the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Warangal are quashed insofar as the petitioner/accused No.3 is conc

Allu Rama Narsaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132541

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY,THE THIRD^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE^{G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY}

¶7

cRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{6572OF 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Allu Rama Narsaiah, S/o Allu Venkateswarlu^{Age 45 years, Caste SC-Mala} Occ Business, Rl/o PIot No.71^{VivekanandaColony NearVenkateswara} Temple Kukatpally lMandal, Medchal-^{MalkajgiriDiskict}

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.3

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor^{High Court} at Hyderabad

¶13

)

¶14

2 Kolipaka Mallaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Age 62^years, Occ Agriculture,^R/o Mekalagattu village Raghunathapally Mandal, Janagam District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,^{the High Courtmay} be pleased to Quash SC.SPL/258/22 in the Court of Honble ll Additional^District and Sessions Judge- Cum- Special Court for SC/ST^{(POA)Cases,Warangal, to} the extent of the Petitioner^(A3).

¶17

l.A. NO: 3OF 2023

¶18

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 extend the interim order dated 19-7 -2023 in Crl.P.No.6572 of²⁰²³ untill further orders and be^pleased to^pass

¶19

l.A NO: 1OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings including arrest andappearance of the} Petitioner.in SC SPL 1258122 in the^{Court of Honble ll Additional District and}

¶21

Sessions Judge Cum Special Court for SC/ST POA Cases Warangal,^pending disposal of the Criminal Petitron.

¶22

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri^T.S. PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri S.GANESH, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of none appeared^for the Respondent No. 2

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

)

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶27

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6572 of 2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/ accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in SC.SPL./258/22 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Warangal

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner/accused No.3 that he has purchased Acs.156.00 guntas of land in Survey No.206/2/2, 206/D/2,206/4/7,205/A/1 and 224/B situated ar Mekalagattu Villae, Raghunathapally Mandal, Janagam District, from accused No.1 - Peddi Raji Reddy, under an agreement of sale dated 09.09.2020, for a vait-l sale consideration of Rs.70,95,72,000/Initially, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.2.00 Crores towards advance, and the same has been menticned in the agreement of sale itself and the balance amount was directed to be paid at the timc of registration. However, the petitioner was put in possession of Acs.142.00 guntas only, pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 09.09.2020. lhe petitioner has leveiled the

¶31

¶32

¶33

.AC, J 2 (lrl P No65tI.oI2123

¶34

said land by clearing boulders^{ar-rd rockytert ain and was} contemplating to sell the^{said land to the prospective purchasels'} At tlrat stage, on 20.03.2022,^{respondent No.2 has lodgeda} complaint before the^{Station HouseOfficcr, Ra ghunathapally} Police Statlon, contending^{that accused Nos.1 and 2 have} threatened him to sell^{his land to them ancl they have forcibly} took his signatures on^somesLamP PaPers^{anCthataccusedNos l} and 2, in consonancc^{with accused No.3,have convertedfour} acres of land into plots^{and sold arvay ther.r rvith higherrates} without paying the balance^{alnount that was altege'dlypayableto} him. Based on the said^{complaint, the policeha"e registered a} crime aide FIR No.67 of^{2022for the offences purrishable under} Sections 384 and 420^{I.P.C. and Section S(t)(fl(g) of the Scheduled} Castes and Schedulecl^{Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities)Act, 1989'} The Police, after conducting^{investigation,filed charge sheet} charging the petitioncr for^{the offencesunCer 9rtion 384,420} and 506 I.P.C. and thc same^{was taken cognizanceby the Court} below in SC.SI>L / 258 /^22.

¶35

It is the specific contention of the learned^(rounsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner does not appear in ihe

¶36

GAC, J crt.P.No.651rot 2oz3

¶37

¶38

{ I

¶39

complaint or in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the prosecution wihresses and that the petitioner has only purchased the land from accused Nos.1 and 2, and he has falsely been implicated in the case. Therefore, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings agains t the pe titioner in SC.SpL. / 259 / 22,

¶40

On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor has stated that during the course of investigation, the Inves tiga ting Officer has found that the petitioner/accused No.3 has purchased the above land from accused Nos.1 and 2 knowing fdlly well that the said land was allotted to SC Community people under Bhoodhan Yagna Scheme, 1975.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. perused the record.

¶42

In spite of serving notice, none appeared for the contesting respondent No.2.

¶43

A perusal of the complaint clearly discloses that specific allegations are made against accused Nos.1 and 2 only. Even 161 Cr.P.C statements of L.Ws.1 to 5 do not disclose anrr allegations against the petitioner/accused No.3. Furthermore, the petitioner

¶44

GAC,.] Crl P.\o5t1&,i²⁰²³

¶45

¶46

is only purchaser^{of the land. In spiteof the same' the petitioner} is charged with^{offences under Sections 384, 420 and 506 I P C'} Therefore, this Court^{is of the considered view that it is a fit case} to quash the^{proceedings in SC.SPL'/258/22on the file of the} Court of the II^{AdditionalDishict and Sessions Judge-cum-} Special Court^{for SC/ST (POA) Cases,Warangal' insofar as the} petitioner/ accused^{No.3 is concerned'}

¶47

Accordingly, the^{Criminal Petition is allowed and the} proceedings^{in SC.SPL./258122on the file of the Court of the II} Additional District^{and SessionsJudge-cum-SpecialCourtfor} SC/ST (POA)^{Cases,Warangal,are quashed, insofar' as the} petitioner/ accused^{No.3 is concerned'}

¶48

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any pending'shall stand}

¶49

closed

¶50

ASs'ss#iT??B',SrmH //TRUE COPY// ,AI sEcTloN EFrrcen

¶51

To,

¶52