IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3143 OF 2010. Between: G. Ramakrishna … Petitioner-Accused V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad &nAnr. … Respondent-Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri V. Venkata Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Addl.Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following (Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3143 OF 2010 O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. Though served with notice, the defacto complainant did not appear either in person or through advocate. 3. The brief facts of the case required for considering the present criminal petition are as follows: According to the petitioner he is a builder engaged in construction of apartments. He constructed an apartment. While construction activity was going on he appointed the second respondent-defacto complainant as Supervisor. When the audit of accounts was conducted it was revealed that the defacto complainant misappropriated the amounts to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a report to the Police against the second respondent and as the police did not take any action, she filed the complaint before the Magistrate alleging commission of offence under sections 420, 408, 448, 506, 237 IPC against the second respondent. Subsequently the second respondent came to the petitioner’s house and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. The petitioner lodged a report before the police seeking protection. After concluding investigation the case is filed and the defacto complainant gave a false report to the Inspector of Police, Madhapur Police Station alleging that he invested an amount of Rs.10 lakhs in the construction of apartments of G. Rrama Krishna along with the petitioner and the entire profit was taken away by the petitioner without giving his share to the second respondent. It is further alleged in the complaint that the report lodged by the second respondent against the petitioner abusing him several times in his caste name and when he demanded the amount due to him, the petitioner threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that on 11-03-2010 when the second respondent approached the petitioner and asked to pay the amount due to him he necked him and abused him in his caste name. 4. Having gone through the entire allegations and counter allegations made by the respective parties, the crux of the dispute appears to be the one relating to the construction of apartment. The dispute as it seems is as to whether the second respondent worked as a Supervisor under the petitioner or whether he was a partner in the apartment of the petitioner in the real estate business. The dispute essentially relates to the amount of Rs.10 lakhs which according to the petitioner was misappropriated. Whereas the second respondent states that he invested the money in real estate business and the petitioner did not pay him the profit of his share. Except bald and general allegations that the petitioner abused the second respondent in his caste name, nothing has been stated in the report lodged by the second respondent to the police. It is not specifically mentioned in the said report that the petitioner belongs to non- scheduled caste and none scheduled tribe. In any event when the report lodged by the second respondent is lacking in details and prima facie appears to be a created one and in view of the pendency of the earlier cases against the second respondent which were filed at the instance of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the present complaint is without any substance and it does not attract the offence punishable under section 3 (i) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (POA) Act. If the proceedings are allowed to continue, it is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No. 150 of 2010 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy district is hereby quashed and the criminal petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 20-10-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3143 OF 2010 Circulation No. Date:20-10-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43