Annamaneni Subash Rao v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K.SURENDER
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-01-04. Annamaneni Subash Rao v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 32sl I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER CR IMINAL PETITION NO: 11822 OF 2018 Between: 1. Annamaneni Subash Rao, S/o. Linga Rao, Aged about 58 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Tarlapad Village, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. 2. Annarnaneni Maniula, Wo. Annamaneni Subash Rao, Aged about 55 Years, Occ. House hold, R/o. Tarlapad Village, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. 3. Tandra Anand Rao, S/o. Kishan Rao, Aged 51 Years, Occ-Agriculture, R/o. Ambedkar Nagar, Khanapur Village and Mandal, Nirmal District. 4. Paidioelli Ravinder Rao, Sio. Kishan Rao, Aged 65 Years, Occ. Agriculture' R/o. Vidyanagar, Khanapur Village and Mandal, Nirmal District. 5. Tandra Susheela, Wo. Late Sanieeva Rao, Aged 70 Years, Occ House hold, Rl/o. Vidyanagar, Khanapur Villag'e and Mandal, Nirmal District. 6. Tandra Subadra, Wo.
Late Govind Rao, Aged 75 Years, Occ House hold, R/o. Vidyanagar, Khanapur Village and Mandal, Nirmal District. R/o. Tarlapad 7. Pureti Ushana, S/o. Lachanna, Aged 53 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Vllage, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. 8. Gandla Raianna, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 65 Years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Mdyanagiar, Khanapur Village and Mandal, Nirmal District. ... Petitioner/Accused No. 1 to 4,6,8,9 & '11 AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad. ..... ,Respondent 2 Borubontala Laxmi, Wo. Late Raianna, Aged 60 Years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Tarlapad Village, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. ... RespondenUDe- facto complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Criminal Proceedings in C. C. No. 878/2012 against the iretitioners/Accused No.
1 to 4, 6, 8, 9 and 1 1 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First C|ass at Nirmal. l. A. No: I OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all Further Proceedings including Appearance of the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 to 4, 6, 8, I and 11 in C. C. No. 878/2012 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nirmal pending disposal of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C HARI PREETH, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER ) o sRI Jt STICE K,SURENDER THE HON'BLE No .
11822 2018 PETITION of cRIMIN N ORDER: is filed to quash the proceedings Petition 1. This criminal 11 in C'C'No'878 of 1 to 4' 6' 8' 9 & against the petitioners Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Additional 2Ol2 onthe file at Nirmal. is there the 2"d respondent that is civil case of 2. Briefly, the petitioner/A1 A1 her and the l"t and between dispute pending file of Junior Civil Judge against her on the hled false civil suit is pending. Since two months prior to court at Nirmal which supporters who are other accused A1 and his hling complaint, against 2nd respondent and bore grudge in the complaint, not handover Ac'O'03 gts of land she does threatening that if village' they would beat her and see Tarlapad in Sy. No. 68 at her end. She is the owner and possessor of land bearing Sy. No. 68toanextentofAc. o. o8gtsatTarlapadvillageand that her father in law namely B. Venkanna purchased the said gts in Sy. No. 68 from the original Iand to an extent of Ac. o. 15 owner K. P.
Mallaiah on 25. O3. 1953 for consideration Rs. 15O/- and was delivered possession. Since then, death, he was enjoying the land and after his death, husband was in possession and enjoyment till his death about 14 years back and left her ald her children as his successors. At the time of formation of road widening, about O. O7 land was lost by her family and she has constructed shed vide G. P. No. 2-26 about 7 years back and storing dung in the remaining open land by fencing cattle shed. the death of original pattdar, she took steps to register land in her name and on her request, registered was executed in her favour to an extent of Ac. O. Og Sy. No. 68 on 11. 03. 2005. Thereafter, the land was mutated in her name. On 17. O7. 2005 at about 12.
00 noon a_ll the went to her cattle shed while she was present, started her in filthy laaguage such as 'Donga Lanje, Lambdi@ and when she requested a-ll the accused not to abuse accused did not hear her request and all of them beat hands saying why she has not handed over land of Ac. O. 03 gts to A1. Meanwhile, the named witnesses intervened J rescued, otherwise they would have kilied her. Thereafter, she went to PS, Khanapur ard lodged complaint. Instead of taking action against the accused, they advised 2"d respondent to approach the court. Accordingiy complaint was hled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, there is a civil case which is pending in between the hrst petitioner and the 2nd respondent. After the civil suit was hled, 1", petitioner obtained favourable orders against the 2na respondent. The 2"d respondent approached the criminal court and filed the present complaint only to force settlement in the case.
For the said reason, proceedings have to be quashed. 4. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the contents of the complaint have to be'looked into and if the contents make out pima case, this Court cannot quash facie the proceedings. In the complaint, it is clearly mentioned that a-tl the petitioners have gone to the residence of the 2'd respondent, abused her and assaulted her. In the said circumstances, trial must go on. 5. The dispute is with regard to Ac. O. O3 guntas of land in between A1 and the 2na respondent. The 1sr petitioner hled suit even prior to lodging of the present complaint. Admittedly, disputes are pending. In the complaint, it is mentioned that the petitioners 2 to 8 and others along with A1 went to the premises of the 2. d respondent and assaulted her. Except making bald allegation that all the petitioners assaulted her, nothing specihc is attributed to any of the petitioners g.
2 to To attract an offence under Section 504 of IpC, a person should have intentionally insulted a person and thereby giving provocation to that person and such provocation would result in breaking public peace or committing any other offence. In the present case, no such allegation is made against the petitioners 2 to 8. None of the ingredients under Section 504 of IPC are made out. 6. Further, except making bald allegation that A1 has beaten the 2"a respondent along with others, nothing specihc is attributed to petitioners 2 to 8, who are A2, A3, 44, A6, Ag, ,{9 and ,{1 1. ) 7. In the said circumstances, this Court debms it appropriate to quash all further proceedings against petitioners 2 to 4, 6, 8, 9 e 11/A2 to 44, 4. 6, A8, A9 and A11. 8. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners 2 to 4,6,8,9 e lI/A2 to A. 4, . 46, A8, A9 and At1 in C. C. No. 878 of 2Ol2 on the hle of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nirmal, are hereby quashed.
However trial Court shall proceed against A. 1. 9. Criminal Petition is allowed in part Ass,srAi?!. [69ffi4 //TRUE COPY// U/ I sEcTtoN oFFtcER To, 1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nirmal 2. The Station House Officer, Khanapur potice Station, Adilabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI C HARI PREETH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI NARESH REDDY CHTNNOLLA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ADK w HIGH COURT DATED:0410112024 c ORDER o /',<\ ! CRLP. No. 11822 ot 2018 ,-,1 lt ii i- :,i . Ji'/ s-i" tl * o oH9 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLP qcryXtE ffi--
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.