IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed proceedings against the accused due to lack of prima facie evidence and emphasized the need for specific overt acts in cases under the SC/ST Act.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[For short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 45 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.188 of 2020 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST Cases-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code[For short ‘I.P.C’] and Section 3(1) (r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[For short ‘the Act’].

2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:

a. Respondent No.2/Complainant is the resident of Sainagar, Mudigubba Village and Mandal and has been eking out his livelihood by establishing a water plant on the subsidy given by the Government. He belongs to ST-Erikala community. On 04.05.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., while he was standing in front of his water plan, Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 came to the water plant and asked as to “Emira Neellu Vadala Ledaa”.

b. When the complainant stated that due to lock down, he closed the plant at 12.00 p.m. Accused No.1 grew wild on him, caught hold his collar and abused him saying that “Emira, Erikala Lanja Kodaka, Naa Maatake Eduru Cheptaavaa”. Saying so, he threw the complainant down and beat him and thereafter, the villagers rescued him. On hearing the Police Jeep siren, Accused No.1 left that place.

c. When the complainant went to the Police Station, to report the same to the Police, as the S.I of Police was not available in the Police Station, while he was returning home, on the way, at the Masjid situated beside Dorigallu Road, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 restrained him and abused him saying that “Emira, Erikala Lanja Kodakaa, Nuvventha, Nee Brathukentharaa, neecha kulamlo puttina naa kodakaa, nee brathukuki entha dhairyam unte maa meede kesu pedathavaa raa”. So saying, they all threw him down and threatened to kill him if he does not leave the village. Then the villagers came there and rescued the complainant. Though the complainant went to Mudigubba Police Station on 05.05.2020 and reported the matter, Police did not take any action.

d. Till then, all the accused has been abusing him in the name of his caste and also threatening. Having no other go, the complainant left the village and has been taking shelter at his relatives’ house. As such, he lodged the present complaint against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 filed the present petition on the following grounds:

a. Petitioners have not committed any offence much less the alleged offences.

b. The FIR has been registered on 30.07.2020, whereas the incident alleged to have been occurred on 04.05.2020 which itself discloses that the Petitioners are falsely implicated.

c. Petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.9305 of 2010 on 26.05.2020 against the Police Officials, including the S.I of Police, Mudigubba Police Station for illegally beating Petitioner No.1 in the Police Station for the incident held on 04.05.2020. The Hon’ble Court while disposing the Writ Petition has passed an order dated 26.08.2020 about the illegality of the Police. In view of the said orders, the present case has been foisted wantonly on 30.07.2020. As per the counter filed by the S.I of Police, Mudigubba Police Station, in W.P.No.9305 of 2020, nowhere it was stated about the alleged offence said to have been committed under the Act and it has been clearly stated that there was a quarrel between the parties on 04.05.2020 at about 6.30 p.m. It clearly discloses that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent N