HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.937 OF 2007 Between: R.Nagaraju & Ors. … PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. Through Public Prosecutor & another. … RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.937 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in P.R.C. No. 2 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nuzivid, relating to offences punishable under Sections 441, 447, 427/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act). Subject matter of dispute in this case is three cents of site out of vast agricultural land, which site the victim/complainant is claimed to have encroached 25 years ago and raised a thatched house and living in it. It is alleged that on 12.10.2004 at about 12.00 noon, A.1 to A.3 came there and began removing hut of the second respondent with help of A.4 and A.5, who are coolies and that when the second respondent questioned the same, A.4 and A.5 stated that they were doing so as paid coolies under A.1, and that A.1 abused her in filthy language touching her caste as ‘Madiga Lanja’. Previously, when the second respondent presented a telugu complaint before the Magistrate, it was forwarded by the Magistrate to Veeravalli Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police registered the complaint as case in Crime No. 81 of 2004 under Sections 447, 427/34 IPC only. The police did not register the case for any offence under the provisions of the Act. After superficial investigation, in which the Investigating Officer examined only the victim, the final report was filed before the Magistrate referring the case as non-bailable. On a reading of the final report of the Investigating Officer, it is evident that he brushed aside statement of the victim and certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer about her possession of the site with hut therein. Thereupon, the complainant filed second complaint before the Magistrate questioning the final report of the Investigating Officer. After recording sworn statement of the complainant and three others, the Magistrate took the case on file for offences punishable under Sections 441, 447, 427/34 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Act and issued summonses to A.1 to A.6. A.6 is the Investigating Officer i.e. Sub-Inspector of Police, Veeravalli Police Station. Questioning taking cognizance of the complaint for the above offences, A.1 to A.3 and A.5 filed this petition. Admittedly, the disputed site of three cents does not belong to the second respondent. It is part of agricultural land belonging to A.1. The victim is stated to have encroached into three cents and constructed the house and has been living there since the time of her ancestors. Since there is bona fide dispute regarding right and title with regard to the disputed land, in my opinion, law does not permit booking of case for offences under Sections 441, 447, 427 IPC as against one of the claimants who is a party to bona fide dispute. Therefore, this Court finds that taking cognizance of the case for offences punishable under Sections 441, 447, 427/34 IPC against the petitioners is not in accordance with law. In so far as offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, as per allegations contained in both the complaints filed by the second respondent, the attributions are made only against A.1. None of A.2, A.3 and A.5 made any utterances touching caste of the second respondent. Therefore, the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the case for the said offence as against A.2, A.3 and A.5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in PRC.No. 2 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nuzivid, in so far as petitioners 2 to 4/A.2, A.3 and A.5 are concerned. The Criminal Petition is also partly allowed in so far as the first petitioner/A.1 is concerned quashing proceedings relating to offences under Sections 441, 447, 427 IPC therein. The Magistrate is at liberty to proceed with the case as against the first petitioner/A.1 for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:29.01.2010 usd