P.ANAND RAO Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition is filed by A -1 to A -5 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") seeking quashing of investigation in Cr. No.60/2013 of Begum Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad, which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act").

(2.) THE allegations in the report lodged by the second respondent are as under: The second respondent who is a builder involved in several construction projects, came into contact with a local builder by name Pilli Ananda Rao (A -1) and his family at Visakhapatnam and did several construction works. A -1 was chit subscriber of Margadarshi Chit Fund, Visakhapatnam Branch, for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. The second respondent who was also a subscriber stood as guarantor No.7 to A -1. When A -1 committed default in payment of money, the authorities at Margadarsi collected a sum of Rs.4,25,000/ - by adjusting the chit amount of the second respondent. After adjusting the said amount into the credit of A -1, the second respondent demanded A -1 for repayment of the said amount by contacting him personally and through SMS but A -1 was procrastinating the same on one pretext or the other. After much persuasions, A -1 asked the second respondent to come to his family house at Malakunta, Hyderabad. On 10 -3 - 2013 at about 2 PM, the second respondent along with his two common friends, namely, Ram Bhoopal Reddy and L. Prabhakar visited the house of the first petitioner. He found A -1, his wife -A -2, his brothers A -3, A -4 and A -5 in the house. When asked about repayment of the money due to him, the accused first asked the informant to sit and thereafter, all of a sudden, A -1 started abusing the informant in most filthy language by saying "Ma Entiki Enduku Vastaura Madiga Lanja Kodaka". Later A -2 and A -3 tried to manhandle the second respondent by uttering as "Madiga Munda Kodaku Gudda Palakotuthe Dariki Usthadu" and pushed him on to the floor. When the second respondent questioned their behaviour, A -2 who is the wife of A -1 also abused the informant as "Madiga Munda Kodukulakulanu Namma Kodadu" and A -5 as "Mee Madiga Mundakodukula Peddalu Evvaru Vachina Mayee Peekaleru". Seeing the incident, the common friends who were present there took the second respondent outside the house but the accused warned the second respondent with dire consequences if any report is lodged. Basing on these allegations, the above crime came to be registered against the petitioners.

(3.) DAYA BHATNAGAR V. STATE 109(2004) DLT 915