SRINIVAS RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner to quash proceedings in FIR No. 416 o: 2008 on the file of the P.S. Shadnagar, Mahbubnagar District, Earlier this petition was dismissed for default/non-prosecution. Now an application has been filed to restore the same. It is always better if the matters are disposed of on merits rather than on technicalities. However, the settled legal position is that whenever an application to set aside the dismissal order is filed, the main case should be heard and disposed of and the matter should not be restored and posted to some other date for further hearing. The Apex Court, in case between Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., 2007 11 SCC 297, observed as follows:

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner by one Vislavath Ramjee Naik and that the allegations therein are utterly false. It is also submitted that even if the contents of the FIR are taken as true, they do not constitute any offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act"). It is also submitted that though the alleged offences took place on 19.09.2008, the complaint was lodged after three days i.e. on 22.09.2008. It is also submitted that if the petitioner is arrested, he will be put to gross and irreparable loss.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the second respondent/de-facto complainant submits that on 15.10.2006 itself, the petitioner herein, having received consideration, executed an agreement of sale in favour of second respondent and further agreed to take steps to see that the Patta is transferred in the name of the second respondent and having taken huge consideration, the petitioner was postponing the execution of registered sale deed through the original pattadar and on 18.09.2008, when the second respondent approached the petitioner, the petitioner abused him in the name of his caste and also abused his wife. It is also alleged that the petitioner also went to the land where the second respondent was cultivating his land and threatened to kill him if he continues to cultivate the land. It is also his submission that the truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be determined in these quash proceedings and there is nothing on record to show that a prima facie case has been made out. His main submission is that not only offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, but also offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(xv) of the act have also been made out against the petitioner. It is also his case that offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC have been made out against the petitioner.