IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.706 OF 2007. Date:02.02.2010 Between:- Md.Nizamuddin and others ..Petitioners/Accused And Medara Srinivasa Rao and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 to 11 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in S.C.No.4 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda relating to offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 323, 354, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(VIII) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities)Act (in short, the Act). 2. The first respondent is the defacto complainant in this case. The first respondent filed private complaint in the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under the Act, Nalgonda, who forwarded the complaint to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Miriyalaguda for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and report. The police registered the private complaint as case in Cr.No.130 of 1998 of Huzurnagar police station. After investigation, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Miriyalaguda filed final report in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Huzurnagar referring the case as false. Thereupon, the first respondent filed protest petition and after recording sworn statement of the complainant-first respondent herein and four other witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Huzurnagar took cognizance of the offences against the accused and issued summons to the accused. It appears that subsequently, the case was committed to the Special Sessions Court under the Act at Nalgonda where it is now pending. 3. It is alleged that the complainant and twenty six others took Ac.45-00cs of land belonging to Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy temple in Sy.No.527/1 of Lingagiri village on lease for the years 1990-91 to 1992-93 from Endowments Department and cultivated the land during those years and that for subsequent years, even though the complainant and others sought for continuation of lease on the same terms, lease of land was proposed to be put to open auction and that the complainant and others approached High Court of Andhra Pradesh and obtained stay orders of auction and cultivated the lands for the year 1994-95 also and that while so, auction was held for lease of the land for the year 1995-96, in which year the lands remained uncultivated and that on 09.07.1997, open auction of leasehold rights was held in which Katta Veerabhadra Rao and eight others became highest bidders for the year 1997-98 and it was confirmed by the Endowments Department and that the auction purchasers of leasehold rights cultivated the land for that year with police protection. It is alleged by the complainant that on 06.07.1998, at 10 a.m., when the complainant and others were attending to agricultural operations in the land, all the accused armed with deadly weapons, criminally trespassed into the land in question with an intention to kill them, abused them in filthy language as Madiga Bastards etc in Telugu and also beat them, and that the accused also removed saree of Medari Kotamma and took away bag of forty kilograms of red gram seeds by threatening with dire consequences. Kotamma was examined as a witness in this case. During investigation, the police examined eight witnesses including the first respondent. As per final report of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, on 06.07.1998, at 10 a.m., when the first respondent and others were illegally ploughing land with a tractor, Village Sarpanch-Md.Nizamuddin, Temple Committee Chairman- Vallabuneni Ram Babu and nine others went to the land and stopped the complainant and others from ploughing the land saying that until disposal of the case in the High Court, no one is entitled to plough the land. It is further stated in the report that no one threatened the complainant- first respondent and others nor abused anybody by caste and that except the complainant, other witnesses did not speak to the allegations and that version of the complainant is exaggerated and that therefore, the complaint is referred as false. Subsequently, during enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 5, whose sworn statements were recorded by the Magistrate. After recording sworn statements, the Magistrate took the case on file. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in fact, the first respondent and others criminally trespassed into the land and tried to plough the land and it was prevented. He also placed reliance on PEPSI FOODS LTD. v. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE[1] wherein it was observed: “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 5. It has to be seen whether in taking cognizance of the case, the Magistrate has complied with the above requirements before taking cognizance. In the order dated 03.11.2005 passed by the Magistrate, by which he took cognizance of the case for the above offences against the accused Nos.1 to 11, it was noted that statement of P.Ws.1 to 5 disclosed that the accused have assaulted P.W.1 and took away seeds from his field and that the accused have trespassed into land of P.W.1 and abused him in filthy language referring to his Madiga caste. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Magistrate did not apply his mind before taking cognizance. As per the Sub Divisional Police Officer, except the complainant, no other witnesses speak to the allegations. On the other hand, P.Ws.2 to 5 stated in their sworn statements before the Magistrate that no police officer examined them. Though prima facie there is no justification for the complainant and his fellow persons to enter into the temple land unauthorizedly, the accused Nos.1 to 11, at the same time, should not have abused P.W.1 in filthy language touching his caste and done other activity complained of. It is contended that false case was foisted against the accused due to grudge, as the complainant and his fellow men have taken steps in the High Court preventing public auction of leasehold rights in the temple land. Whether it is false case or a true one, it cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter which has to be decided after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial in the lower court. At this stage, there are no grounds in law for granting relief to the petitioners in this petition. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 2nd February 2010 AMD [1] (1998)5 Supreme Court Cases 749