IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that insufficient evidence and lack of specific allegations can justify quashing of FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

The present Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.319 of 2018 of Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuram District.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the accused No.3 in FIR No.319 of 2018 of Gooty Police Station, Ananthapuram District, which was registered against the petitioner and two others, for the offences punishable under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, basing on a complaint said to have been lodged by the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the same against the petitioner.

3. The allegation against the accused as per the contents of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent is working as Manager in Sevaghad Sant Sri Senal Maharaj and Jagadamba Matha Temple and on 01.12.2018 at about 12.00 noon at Sevaghad, Cherlopalli village, Gooty Mandal, the accused-Basheer Ahammad and Issaq were working in the land, which was agreed to be purchased by the Trust of the said temple, the 2nd respondent/complainant went there and asked them as to why they are doing the work in the land belongs to Trust, as such asked them not to work there. On that, said Basheer and Issac/accused No.1 and 2 abused the 2nd respondent/complainant touching his caste name as "Sugali Na Kodaka" and said Issac has made a phone call to their Advocate i.e., Shafiulla/petitioner herein, who threatened him on phone with dire consequences. This is due to the land dispute exited between the accused and the complainant Trust.

4. At the time of admission, on 27.03.2019 this Court passed interim stay of all further proceedings with regard to the petitioner is concerned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner herein in the complaint, to attract the provisions under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, [for short "the Act"] except stating that the petitioner has threatened the 2nd respondent/complainant over phone.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has produced the instructions wherein it is stated that during the course of investigation on 02.12.2016 the investigation officer has examined LWs.1 and 3 and identified total 03 persons accused involved in this case by names, Syed Abdul Basher @ Basheer Ahamed, M.D. Issaq and M. Dudekula Shaffulla, who is the petitioner herein. The investigation officer after serving notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused /A1 to A3, filed charge sheet against the accused A1 an A2. However, in view of interim orders passed by this Court on 27.03.2019, A3 could not be charge sheeted. At present the case is numbered as SC.No.105 of 2022 on the file of the Special SC/ST Court, Ananthapuramu and the proceedings are going on against A1 and A2.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the material on record.

8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

9. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the gui