i' IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE TO' o S'w PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4281 OF 2022 Between: 1. P.Sivamohan Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 64 years, occ. Business, R/o. Alpine Heights, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2. Komari Mastanaiah, S/o. Meeraih, age. 60 years, occ. agriculture, caste. Pattatapukapu, R/o. Sri GowripuramPattapupalem village, H/o Ramateertham village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P. 3. Komari Rajarao, S/o. Masthanaiah, age. 36 years, occ. Business, caste. Pattatapukapu, Residing at shop by name and style Fish and Prawns, Varthur Road, Devasthanagalu,Varthur, Benguluru, Karriakata - 560087. 4. Avula Jayalakshmi, W/o. Late Avula Chinnakrishnaiah, age. 58 years, occ. housewife, caste. Pattatapukapu, R/o Sri Gowripuram Pattapupalem village, H/o Ramateertham village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P 5. Avula Raghuramaiah, S/o. Meeraih, age. 55 years, occ. agriculture, caste. Pattatapukapu, R/o Sri GowripuramPattapupalem village, H/o Ramateertham village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P. 6. K. Pottaiah, S/o. Tirupoliah, age. 58 years, occ. agriculture, caste. Pattatapukapu, R/o Sri GowripuriamPattapupalem village, H/o Ramateertham village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND }«■' y 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court OF Andhra Pradesh, At. Amaravati (Through I.O, Vidavalur P.S. SPSR Nellore District) 2. Anapalli Udhaya bhaskar, S/o. Yanadhaiah, aged 41 years, caste. S.C. Mala, R/o. Chowkacherla village, Vidavaluru Mandal. ...RESPONDENT/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 to quash the FIR No. 48 of 2022, dt. 02.06.2022 on the file of Vidavalur P.S., S.P.S.R. Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, as against the Petitioners/A. 1, to A6 in the interest of justice. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 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 vacate the interim orders passed on 28.06.2022 in C;I.P No. 4281 of 2022. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 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 stay all further proceedings against the Petitioners/A. 1 to A.6 in FIR No. 48 of 2022, dt. 02.06.2022 including arrest the file of Vidavalur P.S., S.P.S.R. Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, pending disposal of this Criminal Petition in the interest of justice. on This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Devineni Radha Rani .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor AP on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K. Mohanrami Reddy Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I:' APHC010285392022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4281/2022 Between: 1.P.SIVAMOHAN REDDY, S/0. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. OCC. BUSINESS, R/0. ALPINE HEIGHTS, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD, STATE OF TELANGANA. 2.KOMARI MASTANAIAH, S/0. MEERAIH, CASTE. AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. R/O. SRI PATTATAPUKAPU, AGRICULTURE GOWRIPURAMPATTAPUPALEM VILLAGE, H/0 RAMATEERTHAM VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 3.KOMARI RAJARAO, S/0. MASTHANAIAH, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, CASTE. PATTATAPUKAPU, RESIDING AT SHOP BY ROAD, BENGULURU, KARRIAKATA - NAME AND STYLE FISH AND PRAWNS, VARTHUR DEVASTHANAGALU,VARTH U R, 560087. 4.AVULA JAYALAKSHMI, W/0. LATE AVULA CHINNAKRISHNAIAH, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, CASTE. PATTATAPUKAPU. R/O SRI GOWRIPURAM PATTAPUPALEM VILLAGE, RAMATEERTHAM VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE H/0 DISTRICT, A.P 5.AVULA RAGHURAMAIAH, S/0. MEERAIH, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, CASTE. PATTATAPUKAPU, GOWRIPURAMPATTAPUPALEM VILLAGE VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 6.K. POTTAIAH, S/0. TIRUPOLIAH, AGRICULTURE, CASTE. PATTATAPUKAPU GOWRIPURIAMPATTAPUPALEM VILLAGE, H/0 RAMATEERTHAM VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) R/O SRI H/0 RAMATEERTHAM AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. R/O SRI AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMARAVATI (THROUGH I.O, VIDAVALUR P.S., SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT) 2.ANAPALLI UDHAYA BHASKAR, S/0. YANADHAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS. CASTE. S.C. MALA, R/O. CHOWKACHERLA VILLAGE, VIDAVALURU MANDAL., HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 1 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.DEVINENI RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.48 of 2022 on the file of Vidavalur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 341, 386, 427, 506, 109, 120B read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860^ and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989^ Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri C.Raghu, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public 2. Prosecutor. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of the 3. For short 'Cr.P.C’ ^ For short‘l.P.C’ ^ For short ‘SCSI Act’ alleged offences against the Petitioners. Learned senior counsel would further submit that there are civil and criminal cases pending between the parties with regard to the subject property. It is submitted that the present complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the husband of Accused No.4 against Respondent No.2. It is submitted that the offence under SCSI Act has not been made out against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that the present FIR has been registered without following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P.,'*. It is further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature and the same was given the colour of criminal offence to settle the Learned counsel would finally submit that scores with the Petitioners. continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishan Singh (dead) through L.Rs vs. Gurpal Singh and others®, Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C.Palanisamy and others®, Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others^, and Randheer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others®. Per contra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the allegations mentioned in the complaint amply disclose the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that in view of 4. “ (2014)2 see 1 ^ (2010) 8 see 775 (2013) 6See 740 " (2013) 11 see 673 * (2021) 14 see 626 4 % the stay granted in this matter, no investigation has been done and it is not possible to ascertain the veracity of allegations at this stage and the application for quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, cannot sustain at this stage. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned 5. counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for Determination Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that 6. arises in this case is as follows: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No. 48 of 2022 on the file of Vidavalur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District? Determination by the Court A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 7. 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 of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, 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 5 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. The contents of the complaint, in brief, are as follows; About three months prior to lodging of the present complaint. Respondent No.2 had taken the land of an extent of Ac.5.00 cents from one Onteru Nagendra on lease for doing prawn culture. Previously, there were disputes between said Onteru Nagendra and Petitioner/Accused No.1 with regard to the prawn culture. That being so, on 02.06.2022 at about?.00 a.m., when Respondent No.2 along with one Hari Prasad and some other coolies, JOB and two tractors went to the said land and tried to lay bunds, in view of the previous disputes with Onteru Nagendra, at the instigation of Accused No.1, Accused Nos.2 to 6 came there Accused No.2 stated “ee guntala gurinchi maa reddiki mariyu gollodiki Madhya godavalu jaruguthunte, neekentha dhairyam raa maala naakodakaa ee guntalanu saagu cheyyataaniki nee anthu chusthanu’’. Accused Nos.2 to 6 armed with sticks and knives, together pounced upon him. In the meanwhile, when Hari Prasad came to his rescue, they all beat him indiscriminately. Accused No.5 beat on the right jaw of Respondent No.2 with a cutting player. When Respondent No.2 and said Hari Prasad tried to get into the car, they restrained them and again beat them with hands and kicked with legs. When Respondent No.2 tried to make a phone call, they abused him with dire consequences. Accused No.6 hit the front glass of the car with a stick. All of them brought them to the village by beating all the way and wrongfully restrained them from 8. one 6 8.00 a.m., to 6.00 p.m and also threatened to seek their end. Hence, the complaint. 9. It is the contention of the Petitioners that, Petitioner/Accused No.1 and his son are the owners of the subject lands and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 were engaged by Petitioner/Accused No.1 to look after the said lands as he is a resident of Hyderabad. While so, one Onteru Nagendra Kumar, Onteru KiranKumar and their sister G.Lakshmi Devi by impersonation and forgery. created false documents as if they have purchased the same from the predecessor in title of Petitioner/Accused No.1, and trespassed into the said lands with the help of their henchmen. As such, O.S.Nos.387, 393 of 2014 and O.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge Nellore were filed by the wife of Petitioner/Accused No.1 and others for declaration of title and other relieves and the said suits are pending trial. Criminal complaints were also filed against said Onteru Nagendra Kumar, Kiran Kumar and their sister G.Lakahsmi Devi by Petitioner/Accused No.1 and his wife and the same were registered as FIR Nos.52 of 2015 and 22 of 2015. It is further contended that since the efforts of Onteru Nagendra Kumar and Kiran Kumar in trespassing into the lands belong to Accused No.1 were resisted by Petitioner/Accused No.2 and the husband of Petitioner/Accused No.4, they got registered a false complaint against the husband of Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 6 herein which was registered as FIR No.125 of 2014 and the Police after investigation 7 referred the same as Civil in Nature and converted the same into a petty case. Against the same, protest petition was also filed and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, Cri.R.C.No.440 of 2021 was filed and the same is pending. Subsequently, the husband of Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein filed a case in Crime No.71 of 2018 against said Onteru Nagendra Kumar and others as they attempted to kill him and as a counterblast to the said case, Crime No. 185 of 2021 was registered against the husband of Petitioner/Accused No.4 herein. 10. It is further contended that, Onteru Nagendra Kumar played fraud on the Electricity Department and obtained electricity connection by showing the land of P.Siva Mohan Reddy as his land and by forging the signatures of the Fishers Development Officer. As such, the Fisheries Development Officer also gave a complaint against said Nagendra Kumar which was registered as FIR No.8 of 2022 on the file of Vidavalur Police Station. Further, it is evident from the Google Map that Petitioner/Accused No.3 herein was in Bangalore on the date of the alleged incident. As seen from the above contentions and the material placed on record. 11. it is clear that there are several civil and criminal cases filed and pending between the parties with regard to the subject lands. The material would further disclose that, Rowdy Sheet has also been opened against said Onteru Nagendra Kumar vide Proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam City in C.No. 14/History Sheet/ACP- In the facts and MWD/2015 as he involved in several criminal cases. 8 circumstances of the present case, it is vivid that the present case has been lodged by Respondent No.2 at the instigation of said Onteru Nagendra Kumar and Kiran Kumar with false allegations to compromise the civil disputes with Petitioner/Accused No.1. In Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another®, the Hon’ble 12. Apex Court at Para Nos.14 and 21 held as under: “14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or Intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. V. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.5. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “In any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen 5 (2008) 8 SCC 435 by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made Inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must. ’ 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 653 9 therefore not confuse the expression ‘‘place mthin public view“ with the ^ expression puhhc place’- A place can be a pnvate place but yet within the public view. On the other hand ta public place would ordinarily mean a Pfe which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by allegation was that the has misread the of Ihst cr/n ^shaf.iMac^n^^^^^sitw^ no( a case about the caste of “'menfcned in the to whether the t>bcused either b^ongsX relying upon later larger Bench judgment." 13. Section 3 non- who intentionally (1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act punishes a person member of SC/ST by caste name in any insults or intimidates and abuses any . At this stage, it isis relevant to refer to the decision of . State of Uttar Pradesh place within a public view Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v the necessity of “public view", which is , wherein, emphasis is made on attract the offence, as follows; ,10 & Anr a basic ingredient to "f "T'rtS "vfermTf th'w'efenf hurled aTsterel^d abuses at >he ^ by the t-O.. it whether it 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469 10 <1 appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1 )(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view’’, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1 )(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present. ('emphasis supplied) In the case on hand, a fair look at the complaint would disclose that, mere allegation of abusing in the name of the case of Respondent No.2, there material to show that Petitioners insulted or intimidated and abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste within public view, which is the essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act. The basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. Therefore, it can be said that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners with regard to the offence under Section 3 (1) 14. IS no (r) (s) of SCST Act do not make out a prima facie case against them. Further, there is no material against the Petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 341, 386, 427, 506, 109, 120B read with 149 IPC as well. 15. In Mohammad Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another^\ the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under; This Court hos time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of comptainants attempting to give the ctoak of a criminai offence to matters which are essentiaiiy and pureiy civii in nature, obviousiy either to appiy pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminai courts shouid ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settiing scores or to pressurise parties to settte civii disputes ” 16. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: “7. White exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingty and oniy for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a compiaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. ’’ 12 the 17. In the instant case, in view of the pendency of various civil suits with regard to the title over the subject property, it can be said that the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of a criminal offence. Further, it is found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive to settle the civil disputes. 2009 (8) see 751 2013 (11) see 673 12 In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the material produced before this Court directly indicate mala tides in initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 18. 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners in the above crime. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against 19. the Petitioners /Accused Nos.1 to 6 in Crime No.48 of 2022 on the file of Vidavalur Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 341, 386, 427, 506, 109, 120B read with 149 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCSI Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To The Station House Officer, Vidavalur P.S., SPSR Nellore District) 1. Anapalli Udhaya bhaskar, S/o. Yanadhaiah, aged 41 years, caste. S.C. Mala, R/o. Chowkacherla village, Vidavaluru Mandal. 2. One CC to Sri. Devineni Radha Rani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. 4. One CC to Sri. K. Mohanrami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Public Prosecutor (AP) Advocate [OPUC] 5. 6. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.4281 of 2022 [ 0 Ii JUL 2025 iS ti> CO ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION