IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC can quash proceedings lacking sufficient evidence or motivated by malice.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

The present Criminal Petition is filed questioning the orders dated 09.06.2016 passed in R.C.No.06 of 2015 in Crime No.113 of 2014 on the file of Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram in taking cognizance against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are arrayed as accused No.1 and 2.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint on 28.10.2014 before the Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram Police Station alleging that one Nagu/A1 and Surendra/A2 in the presence of one Kiran, abused him taking his caste name. Pursuant to the said complaint, a crime was registered vide F.I.R. No.113 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 420, 379, 506 r/w 34IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after completing the investigation, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Rampachodavaram i.e., the investigating officer categorically referred the case as ‘false one’ on 13.06.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant filed a protest petition under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. vide Rc.No.06 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram. The Court below after recording the sworn statements of the 2nd respondent as well as the other witnesses, passed orders on 09.06.2016 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioners herein and other accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the said proceedings against the petitioners.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as leaned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent State. Though notice served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were never involved in any alleged offences as alleged by the 2nd respondent and the lower Court erroneously relied upon the statements of one Matcha Kiran, one Saka Srinivas without comparing the said statements with the statement given by the 2nd respondent i.e., defacto complainant as well as the statement of one Prabhu Das. Neither said Matcha Kiran, Saka Srinivas nor the Prabhu Das are the employees of the petitioners Quarry. The original complaint made to the SHO, dated 14.09.2014 also does not disclose the said names. For the first time, said persons were brought before the Court below and made to speak about the petitioners herein. The Court below should not have believed their version in the light of the inconsistencies between their statement and the statement of the 2nd respondent herein, which shows that the lower Court has not applied its mind and mechanically relied upon the statements given by the said Matcha Kiran and Saka Srinivas, thereby took cognizance of the complaint. Though the police have conducted a detailed investigation and filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. closing the case as false case, the 2nd respondent herein has filed a protest petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C., however, a perusal of the entire contents of the complaint dated 14.09.2014 and the subsequent protest petition shows that the same does not disclose any specific allegations against the petitioners herein except bald allegations. Therefore, prayed to quash the orders dated 09.06.2016 passed in R.C.No.06 of 2015 in Crime No.113 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram.

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material on record, the point that would emerge for determination is :

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashing the orders dated 09.06.2016 passed in R