The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice, allowing for investigation into allegations.

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 to 6, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No. 257 of 2020on the file of Seethanagaram Police station, Seethanagaram, East Godavari District, which was registered for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short “IPC”] and Section 3(1)(e) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short “the Act”].

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

(a) Respondent No. 2/de facto complainant is a resident of Munikudali Village of Seethanagaram Mandal. He is the youngest, among three sons to his parents. On 18.07.2020 at about 7.30 p.m. an accident occurred near tank at Munikudali Village, in which, the rider of the bike namely Vijay sustained leg injury, since a lorry dashed him. When the de facto complainant was trying to shift the injured by an auto, Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 belonging to Rajampeta Village, came on a car and started blowing horn. When he was asked to wait for five minutes, Accused No. 1 opened the car door forcibly, due to which the de facto complainant, who was standing beside the door, sustained a bleeding injury on his mouth. The de facto complainant in a fit of anger, fisted on the front glass of the car. Then Accused No. 1 abused me saying that “labour lanjakodaka” and all the accused quarreled and threatened that they will see his end and also stated that they would tonsure his head.

(b) While so, on 20.07.2020 at around 1.00 p.m. S.I. and one constable of Seethanagaram Police Station and a person belonging to Accused No. 1 took the de facto complainant to the police station, where the S.I. of Police beat the de facto complainant on his cheek and pulled out the underwear and beat on his buttocks and feet. S.I. of Police called barber to the police station and got tonsured the de facto complainant and also threatened to register a theft case against him, if he revealed about the said incident to anybody.

(c) Thereafter, the de facto complainant gave a complaint to the Police against the accused, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 257 of 2020 of Seethanagaram Police Station. The said Crime is sought to be quashed in this Crl. Pet. Hence, Petition.

Grounds sought for Quashment

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 6 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said crime on the following grounds:

(a) The allegations mentioned in the complaint do not disclose that the petitioners have abused the de facto complainant by referring to his caste name with an intention to cause humiliation to him. In the absence of any such allegation, registration of FIR for the alleged offences against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

(b) The offence under Section 3(1)(e) of the Act has no application in so far as the petitioners are concerned and it may attract against Accused No. 7.

(c) To attract an offence under Section 3 (2) (va) of the Act, there should be a prima facie attracting the provisions of IPC as specified in the Schedule, but no such case is made out for the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

(d) That the present crime has been registered with false allegations as a counterblast to the case in Crime No. 256 of 2020, which was registered basing on the report given by Petitioner No. 5/Accused No. 5.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1 and Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 would submit that it is a false case foisted against the petitioners