PANTIYALA RAJA Vs. GOGUMALLA CHINA KOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1 to A-8 in the criminal proceedings pending against them in P.R.C.No. 4 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, seek to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) On a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, a case was taken cognizance of for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 of the Indian Penal code, 1860, Section 3(1)(x) and Section 4 of S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. An enquiry was conducted and the proceedings were taken on file on the P.R.C.No. 4 of 2005 duly. Pursuant to the summonses issued, the petitioners, who are accused therein, appeared before the Court and thereafter filed the instant application seeking to quash the said proceedings.

(3.) It is alleged inter alia in the complaint that there is a kunta known as Ammina kunta, which is an extent of Ac. 18.02 cents covered by Survey No. 6 of Dronadula village. It had become defunct and therefore the ancestors of the first respondent occupied the said kunta, levelled up the same and had been raising dry crops thereon. After the advent of Sagar canals water, they converted the respective portions occupied by them, as wetlands. Since then, they have been cultivating the said portions occupied by them. When the first respondent and other witnesses (L.Ws. 2 to 9) applied to the Government for grant of pattas. They were granted pattas temporarily for cultivation of the same. Even the Gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution raising no objection for the first respondent and other witnesses raising fishponds thereon. Accordingly, with the financial assistance of the S.C. Corporation, Ongole, the first respondent and others converted those lands into fish ponds and started doing pisciculture. The then District Collector ordered for the auction of the fish reared in the said ponds by the first respondent and others on the false representation made by their opponents. An amount of Rs. 11,000/- was realized in the auction and it was distributed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the first respondent and other witnesses. The first respondent and other witnesses belonged to scheduled caste and have been in possession of the kunta, as aforesaid. The third accused- petitioner, who was the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat filed a suit, O.S.No. 207 of 2000, against the first respondent and others for perpetual injunction. In I.A.No. 921 of 2000, he obtained a temporary injunction. However, when the first respondent and others preferred C.M.A.No. 2 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, the injunction order was suspended. Thus, there has been no injunction order granted against the first respondent and others. During the agriculture year 2001 -2002 L.Ws. 3,4,5 and 7 to 9 raised paddy crop in their respective portions, but A-1 to A-8 (petitioners), who belonged to upper caste, wanted to take away the said land from the possession of the complainant and others. On 04-01 -2002, in the presence of M.R.O. and A-9, Sub- Inspector of Police, all the accused pressurized them to forcibly evict the complainant and others from the said land alleging that they were the encroachers. At about 4 p.m. on that date, A-9 and other accused went to the said land, trespassed into the same and destroyed the crop, which was ripe for harvest with the help of tractors, proclainers and other instruments. When the first respondent and others objected for the highhanded and unlawful act of the accused, A-1 to A-8 with the support given by A-9, abused the complainant and other witnesses in their caste like The complainant and others fearing for their lives stood as spectators, although the crop was destroyed by A-1 to A-9 and thereby accused caused damage to the crop to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant lodged a complaint with A-10, but no action was taken. The complainant was sent to the Station House Officer, Martur, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Martur, which was registered as crime No. 10 of 2002 under the above provisions of law. A-10, who was the Investigating Officer, did not properly investigate the case with an intention to help the other accused and referred the case as false.