E SUDHEER REDDY Vs. MANDA KONDANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 35 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District.

(2.) The petitioner herein is A2 in the said criminal case. He is the Managing Director of M/s. I.V.R.C.L. Infrastructures and Projects Limited, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The defacto complainant Manda Kondanna and 219 others were engaged by one Ravi Kumar Reddy of SKK Projects Limi ted for IVRCL Infra and Projects Limited Contractors to work at road works from Kustigi to Rona, Gadag District, Karnataka State. The allegation is that they worked for two seasons i.e., for 286 + 280 days and from morning 6.00 AM to 6.00 PM everyday. It is also their contention that the contractor agreed to pay minimum wages and over time wages, but however, at the end of the work the contractor sent them away without paying due wages. It appears that they have approached the authorities concerned and filed petitions for payment of wages. After filing the petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Mahaboobnagar for payment of wages, both the accused are alleged to have called the complainant and other two workers namely T. Saha Devudu and Raju on 19.05.2008 at about 3.30 PM for talks with regard to issue of settlement of wages and accordingly the complainant and other two workers approached the accused at Hyderabad, where the accused seems to have offered to pay only Rs.12,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of wages instead of Rs.27,00,000/-. The complainant and other two workers did not agree for the same and the talks failed. The further case of the de facto complainant is that both the accused bore grudge against him and that on 21.05.2008 at about 6.00 PM both the accused with a criminal intention came to the house of the complainant situated at Kanimetta village, Kothakota Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District and beat him indiscriminately all over his body and abused him by touching his caste that "Madiga Kodukullara - Mameeda Kesulu Pedathara". Then a representation was given to the Chairman, State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Hyderabad on 22.05.2008. The complaint was forwarded to the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District and to the Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District. Then the matter was referred to the Station House officer, Kothakota Police Station. The Police, Kothakota Police Station registered a case in Crime No.94 of 2008 on 24.06.2008 against both the accused. However, after completing investigation, the police filed final report stating that the complaint is false. Then the complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of the complainant and other witnesses and passed the impugned order not accepting the final report filed by the police and taking cognizance of the offence against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued process against A1 and A2. The petitioner herein is A2.

(3.) Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that admittedly on 22.05.2008 the complaint was given to the Chairman, State Commission for SCs and STs, Hyderabad, and in the said complaint there is no reference to the name of the petitioner herein. His further submission is that the date, time and place of the alleged offence have not been mentioned in the complaint given to the Chairman, State Commission for SCs and STs, Hyderabad, on 22.05.2008. It is also his submission that the petitioner being a Managing Director, in all probabilities, would not have gone to the village of the complainant which is at a distance or 200 KMs from his Headquarters and would not have abused the complainant. It is also his submission that a reading of the contents of the complaint go to show that there were talks between the accused and the complainant on 19.05.2008 at Hyderabad and this shows that the complainant knew the petitioner/A2 and when he knows the petitioner/A2 in all probabilities he would have mentioned the name of the petitioner in the complaint given on 22.05.2008. It is also his submission that where the allegations are inherently improbable and unbelievable the proceedings are to be quashed. He has also relied on a decision reported in- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1) AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein it was observed that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.