IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that quashing proceedings requires compelling reasons, particularly when allegations are vague and unsupported by evidence.

ORDER :

1. 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 and 2 seeking quashment of proceedings against them in S.C. No. 43 of 2019 on the file of Special Court of SC & STs (PoA) Act-cum-XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 354-A and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) (a), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short ‘the Act’].

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

(a) Respondent No. 2/Complainant, who belongs to Madiga Community used to work as a Staff Nurse in Prasanthi Hospital, Anakapalli. After getting job as A.N.M. in PHC, Thummapala, she left the hospital. However, at the request of the Doctor, she used to assist him in the hospital and also in surgeries, for which, the Doctor used to pay remuneration to her.

(b) Accused Nos. 1 and 2, are the relatives of the Doctor. Accused No. 1 underwent a surgery in the hospital and she was inpatient for about 15 days in the said hospital. Accused No. 1 bore grudge against the Complainant thinking that she developed illegal intimacy with the Doctor. Accused No. 2 used to try to molest the Complainant several times.

(c) Accused No. 2, on one day, caught hold the hand of the Complainant, pulled and demanded her to fulfill his lust. Accused No. 1 abused the Complainant in the public place by touching her caste as Mala, Madiga woman and insulted her. As such, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 212 of 2018 of Anakapalli Town Police Station for the above said offences. After due investigation of the case, Police filed charge sheet which was numbered as S.C. No. 43 of 2019.

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the following grounds:

(a) Petitioners were falsely implicated into the crime.

(b) As seen from the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, there are no specific incidents with specific dates.

(c) Petitioner No. 1 has given a complaint against the Complainant and the Doctor alleging that they illegally demanded Rs.10 lakhs from her and both of them locked her apartment and did not allow her, which was not registered by the Police.

(d) There is a delay of nine months in lodging the FIR, which was not explained by the Complainant and the same itself shows that the said complaint and the statements recorded by the Police are all fabricated.

(e) The Doctor also did not support the case of the Complainant with regard to the alleged incident.

(f) The complainant nowhere in the compliant mentioned as to utterance of any word or gesture referring to her caste as such, there is no case made out to invoke the provisions of the Act.

(g) As a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the Petitioner No. 1 against Respondent No. 2 and the said Doctor, the present complaint has been lodged against the Petitioners with false and untenable allegations.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus. Petitioner/Accused No. 1 has given a complaint to the Police against Respondent No. 2 and the Doctor on 28.04.2018, but the same was not registered as a case. Having grudge against the Petitioners, the present complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 on 22.09.2018 belatedly after the alleged incident dated 23.12.2017. The Doctor also did not support the case of Respondent No. 2 with regard to t