Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sabavath Neelavathy vs Nomula Ashok Kumar Goud on 22 July, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………../2025
[@SLP (Crl.) No. 3802 of 2024]
SABAVATH NEELAVATHY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NOMULA ASHOK KUMAR GOUD & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………../2025
[@SLP (Crl.) No. 17365 of 2024]
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. These two appeals arise from a common order dated 04.01.2024
passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in
Criminal Petition No.7415 of 2019.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.07.25
17:12:59 IST
Reason:
1
4. A first information report (for short FIR) was lodged by
Sabavath Neelavathy (i.e., appellant in the main appeal). After
investigation, the police submitted a closure report concluding
therein that inter se parties a civil litigation is pending in
court and allegations are not substantiated. Aggrieved by the same,
Sabavath Neelavathy filed a protest petition. The protest petition
was taken up as a complaint and, after following the complaint case
procedure, on 13.12.2017, the learned magistrate passed the
following order:
“Considering the complaint filed under Section 200
Cr.P.C and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 recorded before
this Court, this Court came to conclusion that a prima
facie has been made out for the offences U/Sec. 420, 506
of IPC and Section 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989. The caste certificates of complaint and accused
were filed by the police along with final report in
Cr.No.219 of 2015 of P.S. Yacharam.
Upon perusal of the above documents cognizance has
been taken against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences
U/Sec. 420, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(iv)(v)(x) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989. Issue summons to accused. Call on
18.01.2018 for their appearance. The complainant is
directed to furnish the documents i.e., complaint and
other documents to the accused”.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2017 Criminal Petition
No.7415 of 2019 was filed by the accused who were summoned
thereunder.
6. The High Court found the summoning order to be a non-speaking
order, not reflecting application of mind, and, consequently, set
aside the said order. While setting aside the said order, the High
2
Court observed that its order will not preclude the learned
Magistrate from taking cognizance by giving reasons.
7. The complainant as well as the accused are both aggrieved by the
High Court’s order and have separately challenged the same. The
complainant’s case is that the order passed by the learned
Magistrate cannot be termed a non-speaking order rather it
sufficiently complies with the requirement of law therefore there
was no justification for the High Court to quash the same on ground
of it being a non-speaking order.
8. The accused party has challenged the said order on the ground
that quashing of the complaint was sought inter alia on the ground
that it did not disclose commission of any offence and the proven
facts indicated that it was mala fide made with a view to spite the
accused who were in civil litigation with the complainant and,
therefore, when, after investigation, the police had submitted a
closure report, the continuance of the proceedings would amount to
the abuse of the process of the court.
9. It is alleged in the complaint that on 15.09.2015 while the
complainant along with her husband were working in their
agricultural fields, the accused along with five unknown persons
came and told the complainant that they had purchased a portion of
the land in the above survey numbers; when the complainant informed
3
them that she has already instituted a suit for partition against
her husband and his brothers before the civil court, which is
pending, the accused abused the complainant and her husband by
using filthy language.
10. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that accused have
been implicated with a mala fide intention by taking aid of the
provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act, 1989) apart from Sections
420 and 506 IPC. It is contended that there is nothing in the
complaint to indicate that the accused had abused the complainant
party being aware of their caste and with an intent to humiliate
them. It has also been submitted that in the civil litigation the
sale deed executed in favour of the accused by the husband of the
complainant is under challenge. The suit is pending, and the
validity of sale deed would be tested there. However, the
ingredients of an offence of cheating are not made out. Insofar as
the offence of Section 506 IPC is concerned, the same has been
added to give color to a pure civil dispute. It has also been
contended that complaint has no support from any medical
examination report and, therefore, the investigating agency
concluded that it was a bogus complaint. In such circumstances, it
is prayed that complaint and the proceedings ought to have been
quashed by the High Court.
4
11. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that correctness
of allegations is to be tested in trial. Insofar as the summoning
order is concerned, it cannot be termed a non-speaking order, as
the order reflects that the learned Magistrate had perused the
complaint and the statement of the witnesses and thereafter it
found to be a fit case for proceeding further in the matter. Such
reasons are good enough to sustain the summoning order. He further
submits that since parties are already known to each other as sale
deed has been executed by the husband of the complainant in favour
of the accused party, even if it is not stated in the complaint
that the accused were aware of the caste of the complainant, the
necessary ingredients of an offence punishable under the provisions
of the SC & ST Act, 1989 are fulfilled to sustain the summoning
order.
12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
materials on record including the complaint. In our view, this is a
case where the proceedings ought to have been nipped in the bud by
the High Court, particularly when the High Court was made aware of
the fact that the matter was thoroughly investigated and the
investigating agency found no substance in the complaint and,
admittedly, parties were in a civil litigation with each other qua
sale deed executed by complainant’s husband. The complaint
allegations indicate that accused party arrived in the fields and
disclosed to the complainant as well as her husband that property
5
was purchased by them; in such circumstances, when sale deed is yet
to be declared void a claim set up on basis thereof would not per
se constitute an offence. As far as use of filthy language is
concerned, there is no allegation in the complaint that such filthy
language was used with a view to humiliate the complainant and with
an understanding that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe community.
13. In matters where civil proceedings are pending inter se the
parties, the Court should be circumspect in accepting the
allegations, and where prima facie offence is not made out, or it
appears proceedings have been initiated to spite the accused or to
harass him, with a view to coerce him into a compromise, the High
Court must not hesitate in invoking inherent powers, particularly,
when there is no independent corroborative material to lend
credence to the prosecution story. Here, admittedly, there is no
injury report to lend credence to any such incidence as alleged and
there are civil proceedings pending inter se the parties. In such
circumstances, the High Court should not have hesitated in putting
a quietus to the frivolous complaint, particularly when the
investigating agency did not find any merit in the allegations made
therein.
14. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the accused party
deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly allowed; whereas the
6
appeal filed by the complainant party is liable to be dismissed and
is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the High Court to the
extent it permits the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh cognizance
order, is hereby set aside. The complaint proceedings impugned
before the High Court shall stand quashed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………..J.
[MANOJ MISRA]
…………..J.
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
New Delhi;
22nd July, 2025
7
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.16 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3802/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-01-2024
in CRLP No. 7415/2019 passed by the High Court for The State of
Telangana at Hyderabad]
SABAVATH NEELAVATHY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NOMULA ASHOK KUMAR GOUD & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 82365/2024 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE SPARE COPIES
IA No. 66981/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 68882/2024 – PER
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 17365/2024 (II)
Date : 22-07-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANFor Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Mr. K Sai Teja, Adv.
Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, AOR
Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Amir Kaleem, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. S.Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv.
8
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Mrs. K.Radha, Adv.
Mr. K.Maruthi, Adv.
Mr. V.Ranga Reddy, Adv.
Mr. K Sai Teja, Adv.
Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, AOR
Mr. Mohd Tauheed, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR
Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.
Mr. M. Srikanth Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In terms of the reasons assigned in the Signed Order the appeal
filed by the accused party deserves to be allowed and is,
accordingly allowed; whereas the appeal filed by the complainant
party is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The order
passed by the High Court to the extent it permits the learned
Magistrate to pass a fresh cognizance order, is hereby set aside.
The complaint proceedings impugned before the High Court shall
stand quashed.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RASHI GUPTA) (SAPNA BANSAL)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
9
[ad_1]
Source link