THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.5507 of 2007 Date : 10-3-2010 Between : Nandyal Achi Reddy and others .. Petitioners and Byagari Narsimha and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.5507 of 2007 ORDER: 1. Heard Sri Ganga Rami Reddy, the learned Counsel representing petitioners/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing 2nd respondent. Though the 1st respondent/complainant had been served, none represents the 1st respondent. 2. Sri Ganga Rami Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that the learned Magistrate should have appreciated the fact that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 25-7-2006 but the respondent filed complaint on 1-10-2006 at the instigation of one Tirupathi Reddy and others who are inimical towards the petitioners. The learned Counsel also pointed out the civil suit O.S.No.63/2005 pending in this regard. The learned Counsel also further pointed out that the final report of the Sub-Divisional Police officer would clearly goes to show that this complaint had been thought of only with a view to harass the petitioners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that on the protest application filed by the 1st respondent/complainant, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalvakurthi recorded reasons in detail and ultimately came to the conclusion that the case to be registered as P.R.C. In the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalvakurthy, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short hereinafter referred to as "Code" for the purpose of convenience). 3. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code to quash the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1988/2007 in F.I.R.No.14/2007 of P.S. Amangal and registration of the case against the petitioners under Section 323, 447 IPC and under Section 3(1)(v) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short hereinafter referred to as “Act for the purpose of convenience) as P.R.C.No.57/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalvakurthy and pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is stated that the 1st respondent, as complainant, filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalvakurthy stating that his wife Byagari Malamma is the absolute owner of land in Sy.No.1441 to an extent of 0-21 gts. situate at Amangal and they are in exclusive possession of the said land. Further it is stated that on 25-7-2006 when he was weeding grass from the crops in the said land, at about 12 noon, all the petitioners herein had illegally entered and trespassed into the above said land and tried to lay a road in the said land and when the 1st respondent resisted them from laying the road all the petitioners had abused him in filthy language using his caste and all the petitioners had beat him indiscriminately. The Hon’ble Court referred the complaint to D.S.P., Shadnagar for investigation. On 22-1-2007, the S.I. of Police, Amangal registered the case vide Cr.No.14/2007 under Section 323, 447 IPC and under Section 3(v)(i) of the Act. 5. It is also further stated that the Sub-Divisional Police officer, Shadnagar, after investigation, referred the case as false and filed the final report on 19-2-2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalvakurthy. While so on 19-6-2007, the 1st respondent filed the protest petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalvakurthy stating that the final report filed by the Sub-Divisional Police officer is a false one and requested to record the statements of the complainant and witnesses and take cognizance of the offence under Section 3(v) (x) of the Act and under Sections 323 and 447 IPC against the accused and punish them according to law. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition and directed to register the case as P.R.C. under Section 323, 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the Act against the petitioners herein. 6. The final report made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Shadnagar, reads as hereunder:- “By the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the complainant Byagari Narsimha (mala) and the alleged accused Nandyala Achi Reddy and other accused are having their ancestral agricultural lands in the limits of Amangal village. The alleged accused have been using the Cart Track since last more than 100 years through the lands bearing Sy.No.1441 of one Thirupathi Reddy and besides the lands bearing No.1441 of complainant Byagari Narsimha and there was no body raised any objection since last 100 years. Meanwhile the Panchayath Raj Department sanctioned road to Chinnaram village through the entering cart track through the fields of complainant brother and one Varkala Thirupathi Reddy in the year 2004. The road work sanctioned (R.R.M. Grant) and the contractors K.Manohar Reddy and others started the laying road and completed 2 KMs road from Amangal PWD main road. The complainant and Varkal Thirupathi Reddy stopped the road work at their fields by obtaining perpetual injunction orders vide O.S.No.63 of 2005 from the Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy on 4-7-2005. Meanwhile the alleged accused A-1 to A-10 and others filed Order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. implead petitions on 18-11-2005 against the complainants brother and one Varkal Thirupathi Reddy before the Junior Civil Judge court, Kalwakurthy requesting the Court for cancellations the injunction orders issued by the Court on the suit properties i.e., Cart tract, which is being used by the alleged accused to go to their agricultural fields and that it is public road which cannot be blocked and caused inconvenience and it is still pending before the Court. It is a purely a civil dispute between the complainant and brother and the alleged accused and it is pending in the Court. Due to civil dispute the complainant with the instigation of Varka Thirupathi Reddy and others filed a false complaint against the alleged accused Nandyal Achi Reddy and 9 others with a mala fide intention to involve them in a criminal case, but the alleged accused have not trespassed into the lands bearing Sy.No.1441 situate in the limits of Amangal and they did not assault or abuse them on the name of his caste as alleged by the complainant and that no such incident took place as stated by the complainant. The witnesses also did not speak about the incident. Further the complainant did not visit the P.S. and report the matter and he did not sustain any injury. The alleged incident took place on 25-7-2006, but the complainant filed a private complaint in the court of J.F.C.M. Kalwakurthy on 1-10-2006 after 2 months 11 days on the instigation of others who are having inimical terms with the alleged accused with a malafide intention to involve them in a criminal case. Therefore no case under Section 323, 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 is made out against the alleged accused. Under the above circumstances I referred this case as false after obtaining permission from Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar vide C.No.10/C3/DCRB/2007 dated 19-2- 2007. I request that the case may kindly be recorded as false and proceedings issued accordingly”. The learned Magistrate had taken into consideration the statements recorded and also further had taken into consideration the civil dispute pending and the implead application which had been filed and specifically pointed out that inasmuch as in all these statements consistent version had been given relating to the referring to caste the prima facie ingredients had been satisfied and the learned Magistrate also had further referred to the other provisions i.e., Sections 323 and 447 IPC and ultimately came to the conclusion that the petition filed by the 1st respondent/complainant to be allowed. This Court also had thoroughly scrutinized the statements which had been recorded. 7. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion on the merits and demerits since the veracity or otherwise of these witnesses may have to be scrutinized and the evidence to be appreciated after subjecting them to cross-examination these aspects are to be decided at the appropriate stage. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 10-3-2010 AM