The court quashed proceedings against petitioners as allegations did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the need for prima facie grounds for prosecution.

ORDER :

(V. SUJATHA, J.)

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.192 of 2019 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 509 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) , 1989.

2. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are the petitioners herein and 1^st respondent is the complainant. The 1^st respondent lodged a report before Dowlaeswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, alleging that on 15.05.2019 at about 5.00P.M., 1^st petitioner, who is arrayed as A.1, along with the 3^rd petitioner, who is arrayed as A.3, came to the house of the 1^st respondent and asked her to initiate steps for securing membership for Mundadugu Praja Party on collection of Rs.100/- towards subscription of the membership and thereby handed over subscription forms and that the petitioners/accused demanded Rs.4,00,000/- towards party ticket to contest in the general elections, for which the 1^st respondent replied that she secured loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from financiers and spent the same in the elections along with her sisters daughters and brother, and expressed their inability to secure amount as demanded. On that reply, the petitioners grew wild against the 1^st respondent and abused her in filthy language by touching her caste name and thereby threatened with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.192 of 2019 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 509 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) , 1989.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that even accepting the allegations in the report to be true, no offence under Section 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of the Act, is made out against the petitioners as the incident did not take place within public view. Further, the petitioners, who are arrayed as A.1 and A.4, belong to Scheduled Caste “MALA” and thereby no offence is made out against them. He further submits that for the purpose of extracting money, the 1^strespondent-complainant is in the habit of lodging false complaints taking advantage of her caste name and extracting money from the innocent people.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, would contend that the issue as to whether the said incident took place within public view or not is a disputed question of fact and the same has to be investigated by the police. He submits that it is impermissible for the High Court to look into the documents filed along with the petition, as the acceptability of which is essentially a matter of trial and that this court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and stall the investigation at the threshold.

6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.192 of 2019 on the file of Dowaleswaram Police Station, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawful