IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY /fO TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE or Wi PRESENT H i HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3336 of 2020 & 5356 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION No.3336 of 2020 Between: Smt. Paladugula Prameela, W/o. Venkataramana, aged about 54 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.2-117, Ramalaya Veedhi, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., Seethanagaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati. 2. Smt. Valluri Mari Ratnam Valluri, W/o. Raju, Aged 38 years, R/o. Cheepurupalli Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Respondents/Complainants 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 call for the records relating to the FIR No. 160/2020 of Seethanagaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, and quash the proceedings thereon. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioner herein in FIR No. 160/2020 of Seethanagaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. praying that in the This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri G Sai Narayana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. on CRIMINAL PETITION No.5356 of 2022 Between: 1. Paladugula Srividya, D/o. Venkata Ramana, aged 38 years, 2. Paladugula Prameela, W/o. Venkata Ramana, aged about 60 years. Both are R/o. D.No.2-117, Purushottapatnam (Village), Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O. Seethanagaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban District Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravati. rep. by its Public 2. Valluri Meri Ratnam, W/o. Raju, aged about 40 years, R/o. D.No. 2-84, SC-Peta Cheepurupalli Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, Rajamahendravaram District. ...Respondents/Complainant 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 quash the proceedings in charge sheet in SC/ST SC No. 190 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge, SCs and STs Court-cum-X Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in SC/ST SC No. 190 of 2018 on the file of the Special Judge, SCs and STs Court-cum-X Addl. District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram,, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri G Sai Narayana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: APHC010223922020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY .THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3336/2020 Between: Paladugula Prameela ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SYEDGHOUSEBASHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.G SAI NARAYANA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 APHC010358412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5356/2022 Between: Paladugula Srividya and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S); 1.SYED GHOUSE BASHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.GSAI NARAYANA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: / 3 COMMON ORDER: The criminal petition No. 3336 of 2020 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in FIR No160 of 2020 on the file of Seethanagaram Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. The criminal petition No. 5356 of 2022 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 & 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in SC/ST SC No.190 of 2018 on the file of the 2. Special Judge, SCs & STs Court-cum-X Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Heard Mr.Syed Ghouse Basha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the 2"^^ respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3. 4. petitioner’s in Crl.P.No.5356 of 2022/ A1 & A2 who are the daughter and mother respectively. Aggrieved by lodging a case against them in Cr.No.155 of 2018 on the complaint made by the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 323, 380, 506 r/w 34 I PC and 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA) Act, 2016, the petitioners approached this Court seeking quashment. 4 5. Learned counsel would further submit that after investigation the police filed charge-sheet, the special Court has taken cognizance for the said offences against A1 & A2 in SC/ST SC.No.190/2018, on the file of SCs &STs Court-cum-X Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 in both the petitions is one and the same. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.3336 of 2020 is A2 who is facing the allegations in Cr.No.160 of 2020 lodged by the 2'^^ respondent on the allegations of trespass, mischief, hurt, criminal intimidation coupled with Section 3(2)(va) of SC ST (POA) Act. Learned counsel would submit that A2 in both the cases is one and the same the subject property against which the dispute is exist between the parties is one and the same. Learned counsel would further submit that with the very same allegations the subsequent Crime No. 160 of 2020 is lodged against the petitioner/A2 therein. Learned counsel would request the Court to consider these as a batch since only to harass the petitioners, with the same allegations these cases have been lodged against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders regarding these two matters. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that accused filed a suit for permanent injunction against the 2"’'' respondent in O.S.No.404 6. 7. cases 8. 5 of 2018, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I class, Rajamahendravaram which was dismissed and appeal was pending before the Principal District Court as A.S.No.137 of 2019. Learned counsel would further submit that a case has been lodged against the respondent No.2 on the complaint of the Tahsildar to effect that the caste certificate of the respondent No.2 is not correct one and 10. she does not belong to schedule caste and she is a Christian. The respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the District Collector and District Collector after due enquiry cancelled the caste certificate of the 2"^ respondent. In absence of the caste certificate of the respondent No.2 that she belongs to schedule caste continuing criminal proceedings absent the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that against the criminal case lodged against the respondent No.2 on the complaint of the Tahsildar, the 2*^^ respondent preferred a criminal petition seeking quashment and it is pending. Learned counsel would further submit that the dispute regarding the caste of the respondent No.2 is not at penalized. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 also filed civil suit against the petitioners seeking permanent injunction but no interim orders are passed, she filed suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Court, which is pending for 11. 6 consideration. Learned counsel would submit that Court appropriate orders. Determination by the Court may pass 12. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected SO as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends ofjustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma Uttarkhand helds that” versus State of 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a IS AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 5584 7 Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1 )(r) of the Act is not made out.” (emphasis supplied) Considering the submissions made and on a fair look at the contents of the complaint, it is alleged against the petitioners, that the petitioners abused respondent No.2 touching the caste since she has purchased a site adjacent to house of the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that the subject property is ancestral property of Accused No.2. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 is contending that she has purchased the subject property. Be that as it may, admittedly, two civil suits are pending between the parties, one is filed by the accused and another was filed by the respondent No.2. The above criminal cases lodged against the petitioners on this Court that they have abused the respondent No.2 touching the caste which is i 14. r 15. an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 2015, they have also trespassed her land. In the light of criminal cases lodged respondent coupled with the caste certificate of the nd against 2 respondent No.2 was cancelled by the District Collector and that apart civil suits are pending before the competent civil Court, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners is mere abuse of process of law. In the result, the petitions are allowed quashing the criminal 17. proceedings. 8 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA assistant registrar \\ //TRUE COPY// s SEC^i^^FFICER To 1. The District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, 2. The Special Judge, SCs and STs East Godavari District. Court-cum-X Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 3. The Station House Officer, Seethanagaram Police Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Amaravathi [OUT] Station High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 5. One CC to Sri Syed Ghouse Basha, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri G Sai Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Three CD Copies TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.3336 of 2020 & 5356 of 2022 I 08 MAY 2025 ^ ^ . Current bection ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS