The judgment establishes the principle that when the basic ingredients of the offences are missing in the complaint, permitting such a complaint to continue and compelling the accused to face the criminal trial would be unjustified and lead to an abuse of process of the Court.

Headnote:
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - CRIMINAL PETITION - Sec. 384 and 506 read with 34 IPC and Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 - Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, [2021 (3) ALT (Crl.) 480 (SC)] - Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P, (2008) 12 SCC 531 - Mahendra Bhatt and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another, (2018) SCC Online Utt 1022
Fact of the Case:

The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging extortion, criminal intimidation, and caste-based insults. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that the complaint was motivated and lacked substance.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the complaint was motivated and exaggerated, lacking specific instances of the petitioners' involvement in the alleged crimes. The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malafides and were maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive for vengeance.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the allegations made against the petitioners would attract the accusation against them and whether there were any merits in the criminal petition to allow.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the principles laid down in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, and other relevant case laws to determine that the complaint lacked substance and was motivated, leading to an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners in S.C.No.57 of 2015 were quashed.

JUDGMENT

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.6 under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.57 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Special Juge for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence under Ss. 384 and 506 read with 34 and Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act").

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

i) The 2nd respondent/complainant has filed a private complaint under Sec. 190(1)(a) and 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioners alleging that on 9/3/2009 he purchased a Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle at Varun Bajaj showroom, Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam for the cost of Rs.69,095.00 by paying Rs.22,109.00 as down payment and Rs.55,000.00 was financed with Lakshmi Finance having its office at D.No.10/50/22/1, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. It is stated that the 2nd respondent/complainant had to repay the loan amount on monthly installments @ Rs.2,406.00 for two years and that he paid two installments @ Rs.2,406.00 each for April and May, 2009 to the said Lakshmi Finance and thereafter he committed default in paying the loan installments.

ii) On 17/7/2009 when the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant parked his motorcycle at VUDA complex, the petitioner/A.5 and Mr.Vinod, who are the recovery agents of the said Lakshmi Finance had taken away the motorcycle without giving any seizure letter. After one month, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant offered to pay the due installments and he wants to take away the vehicle. On that, the staff of Lakshmi Finance sought time stating that the cash payment receipts could not be traced out.

(iii) Again the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant purchased Honda Stunner motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 31 VB 9540 in September, 2009 from Jupitar Honda showroom, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam, by availing finance with HDFC Bank. On 25/9/2009 when the motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 VB 9540 was parked at Samatha Law Hostel, A.U.Campus, the employees of Lakshmi Finance i.e., petitioners/A.1 to A.6 came there and extorted the new vehicle from the custody of Mr.Jagan which belongs to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for the reason that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has not paid the installments of his earlier motorcycle financed by Lakshmi Finance and used abusive language. Immediately, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant approached Lakshmi Finance to settle the due amounts and to return his new motorcycle. However, the staff of Lakshmi Finance has not returned the motorcycle on the ground that cash receipts were misplaced. It is stated that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant being a Schedule Caste person, cannot do anything against the high handed extortions and threatened him to implicate him in false cases, if the 2nd respondent tries to take any legal action against them.

(iv) On 28/9/2010 around 12.00 noon, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant met the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and requested them to settle the dues and return his Stunner motorcycle. On that, the 2nd petitioner/A.2 shouted against him by using the words "Kulam Takkuva(Mala) Lanja Kodukuvi, Mammalni Nuvvemi Chestavura" and the said incident took place in the presence of his assistant Jagan and Venugopala Rao. Immediately, he approached the III Town Police Station and lodged a complaint with a request to take necessary action against the petitioners/A.1 to A.6. The Police neither responded nor registered the crime. While the matter stood thus, the Lakshmi Finance filed a complaint against the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for the offence un