IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed proceedings against the accused as allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence under the relevant sections of law.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [For short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.145 of 2020 on the file of Repalle Town Police Station, Guntur District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and 509 of Indian Penal Code, [For short ‘I.P.C’], and Section 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, [For short ‘the Act’].

2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:

a. Respondent No.3/Complainant is the Superintendent (Traffic) on APSRTC, Repalle Depot. On 16.07.2020 at about 12.30 p.m., while Respondent No.3 was at the control point in the bus stand, Accused No.1, who is the Conductor, came to her. At that time, she was talking with one M.R.Kumar, who is the driver of APSRTC. When she asked Accused No.1 as to the posting of his duty, he replied that he was posted at Lakshmi Talkies and left that place.

b. At about 6.30 p.m., she received a video clip in WhatsApp regarding her conversation with Accused No.1 at the afternoon.

c. On enquiry, Respondent No.3 came to know that, while she was talking with Accused No.1, he took the video without her consent and knowledge. The said video was also uploaded in the Workers Group and the same was also sent to other Depots in Guntur Region.Previously also, Accused No.1 behaved indecently with her, threatened and talked with her in filthy language and she also reported the same to DM/RM orally.

d. Respondent No.3 belongs to SC Mala community and Accused No.1 belongs to Kamma community. As the video became viral, she suffered a lot mentally. As such, she lodged the present complaint against all the accused, which was registered as a case in Crime No.145 of 2020 for the alleged offences.

Grounds for Quashment:

3. Being aggrieved thereby, Petitioner/Accused No.3 filed the present petition for quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds.

a. The case lodged against the Petitioner is motivated, vindictive, capricious and devoid of any reasonable merits.

b. Petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he was falsely implicated at political influence.

c. Sections charged and the contents of the report have no relevancy and mere ingredients of the Sections do not attract the case on hand.

d. No iota of evidence is there to show that the Petitioner either posted or instigated in posting the alleged video.

e. Respondent No.3 neither mentioned nor whispered anything about the involvement of the Petitioner, in her report. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.3.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.3.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that a false case has been registered against the Petitioner and the Petitioner is the Administrator of the said WhatsApp group. It is alleged that while Respondent No.3 and Accused No.1 were talking to each other, Accused No.1 video graphed the conversation and circulated the video clipping in the WhatsApp Group, for which, Petitioner/Accused No.3 is the Administrator. He would further submit that Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and that there are no allegations against the Petitioner. As such, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.

6. Refuting the above contentions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegati