1 HN, J Crl.P.No.4748 _2023 APHC010320042023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4748/2023 Between: T.maddilety and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. HARANADHA RAJU KATTA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 HN, J Crl.P.No.4748 _2023 The Court made the following Order: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as an accused in Special SC/ST No.147 of 2021 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, for the alleged offences under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Amended Act, 2016. 2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent is a YouTuber, and there are admittedly certain disputes between the 1st petitioner and his family and the 2nd respondent with regard to a construction in the premises of Coals Compound. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent had filed a similar complaint alleging offences under the same provisions, and the said complaint was referred to the police for investigation. 3. The police registered Crime No.348 of 2021 and conducted an investigation. Subsequently, they found that the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was false in nature and accordingly filed a final report, classifying the complaint as false. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, vide proceedings dated 11.09.2021, accorded permission to the investigating officer to refer the case in Crime No.348 of 2021 as false and to submit the final report after serving notice to the complainant therein. 3 HN, J Crl.P.No.4748 _2023 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent filed another complaint on 26.06.2021, making similar allegations against the petitioner. The police have now filed a charge sheet, and the same is taken on file by the learned Special Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, except for the statement of the 2nd respondent recorded as LW1, the statements of the other witnesses do not support the version of the 2nd respondent. Upon perusal of LW2 to LW6, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statements of the said witnesses do not support the version of LW1. LW7 makes a passing reference to the alleged utterances by the petitioners; however, there are no specific details as to who uttered what, which is necessary to attract the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2nd respondent is in the habit of filing false complaints, and the present complaint is a verbatim repetition of the allegations made in the earlier complaint, which was found to be false by the police after investigation. 7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the statements of LW1 and LW7 may be referred to for the purpose of considering this petition. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent on 26.04.2024, he has not taken any steps to oppose the petition either in person 4 HN, J Crl.P.No.4748 _2023 or through counsel. As such, the matter is heard in the absence of the 2nd respondent. 8. Considering that notice has been served and the 2nd respondent is not interested in pursuing the matter, the record has been perused. Crime No.283 of 2021, dated 26.06.2021, refers to the alleged incident which occurred on 05.06.2021. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay. The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent mentions two dates of alleged incidents -- 05.06.2021 and 11.06.2021. 9. The complaint also refers to the municipal authorities who visited the place where the construction was underway and alleges that the petitioners obstructed the said authorities. The statement of LW1 also refers to the alleged obstruction caused by the petitioners in the discharge of duties by the municipal officials. 10. LW6, who is an employee of the Town Planning Section, states that he, along with other staff of the Kurnool Municipal Corporation, visited the construction site. However, in his statement, he does not state that the petitioners obstructed their work. His statement indicates that the municipal authorities completed their work and returned to the office without any issues. 11. None of the witnesses examined by the investigating officer specifically state the role of the petitioners in the commission of the offence, either directly or even remotely. Their involvement in an active manner is not established. 5 HN, J Crl.P.No.4748 _2023 12. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment passed of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.Venkateswaran and others vs. P.Bakthavatchalam, wherein the Court quashed criminal proceedings that arose out of a private sale dispute converted into a criminal complaint. 13. In the present case, the allegations leveled by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Amended Act, 2016, are also not applicable, especially in relation to Accused No.2. 14. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that Accused No.2 belongs to the SC community, and therefore, the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be made applicable to him as an accused. 15. After considering the record and perusing the statements of the witnesses, it is clear that none of them support the version of LW1. The statement of LW7 does not directly support LW1 either and only makes a passing reference to the petitioners allegedly shouting to catch hold of the LW1. These vague allegations with equally vague statements are insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. 16. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent, though unconnected with the property under construction, was attempting to record the same, and the petitioners objected to it. The 2nd respondent is also not a resident of Coals Compound, 6 HN, J Crl.P.No.4748 _2023 Kurnool Town, and resides at Ganesh Nagar, Kurnool town, which is far away from the site where the petitioners were constructing their house. 17. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as this case is a fit case which deserves to be quashed. 18. Accordingly, the charge sheet in Special SC/ST No.147 of 2021 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners. 19. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 16.04.2025 NKA 7 HN, J Crl.P.No.4748 _2023 103 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Criminal Petition No.4847 of 2023 Date: 16.04.2025 NKA