IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3298 of 2009 DATE:11.03.2011 Between: Yangampalli Bachanna Goud and others …… Petitioners And The State of A.P. through S.H.O Jadcherla P.S, Mahabubnagar and another ...Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3298 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 to 6 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 468, 447, 323, 354 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Crime No.73/2009 of Jadcherla Police Station of Mahaboobnagar District. Even as per allegations in the F.I.R, the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant belongs to Mala caste and whereas the accused are stated to have abused her and her family members as Madiga bastards and Madiga bitches. It is not her case that the accused abused them in the name of her Mala caste. It is not her case that she belongs to Madiga caste. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent was insulted in the name of her caste in a place of public view as she belongs to a scheduled caste. 2. Be that as it may, even as per the allegations in the report, the offence is stated to have taken place on 05.03.2005. The report was given to the police on 23.02.2009. In spite of there being no bar of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C, there is no explanation offered by the 2nd respondent for the inordinate delay of 4 years in giving report against the petitioners. Previously on the report given by the 2nd respondent’s husband Chandraiah, the police filed SC. No.135 of 2007 against the petitioners 1 to 6 alleging offences under Sections 447, 427, 342 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on an incident which is stated to have taken place on 18.08.2005. After trial, the Special Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar by judgment dated 27.12.2008 dismissed the case and acquitted the petitioners of all the charges. In that case, the 2nd respondent herein viz., Bayamma was P.W-2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 2nd respondent and her family members are bent upon to institute one case or the other against the petitioners in view of the land dispute between them. If really an incident happened on 05.03.2005 as stated in the present report, it would have been reported immediately thereafter or atleast prior to the alleged incident on 18.08.2005 covered by S.C. No.135 of 2007. 3. Disputed lands between the parties are in S.Nos.486 and 487 of Polepalli village. A-1 and A-2 filed O.S. No.14 of 2002 against the 2nd respondent and her husband Chandraiah in Junior Civil Judge Court, Jadcherla for permanent injunction respect of the disputed lands. After trial, the Junior Civil Judge, Jadcherla by decree dated 30.01.2008 decreed the suit with costs granting perpetual injunction in favour of A-1 and A-2. Subsequent to the said decree, the 2nd respondent came up with the present report. On considering the entire material placed before this Court, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that intention of the 2nd respondent is to persecute the petitioners and not prosecuting them. The present report is nothing but offshoot of civil litigation between the parties. It is filed with an intention of arm-twist A-1 and A-2 with some settlement in the land dispute. This is nothing but abuse of process of law. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.73/2009 of Jadcherla Police Station. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 11, 2011 ksh