The court emphasized that specific overt acts must be established to constitute an offence, allowing quashing of proceedings against one accused while dismissing the case against another due to sufficient allegations.

ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.131 of 2021 on the file of the For short ‘Cr.P.C’

Court of XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakahpatnam for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code² and Section 3 (1) (g) (r) (s) read with 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, [For short ‘SCST Act’]

2. Heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. In spite of providing sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 did not turn up to submit arguments.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners have not committed any offence much less the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, in fact, Respondent No.2 and his men abused Petitioner/Accused No.1 in filthy language and as such, Accused No.1 lodged a complaint dated 27.08.2020 with the Commission of Police, Visakhapatnam and as a counterblast to the said complaint, the present complaint has been lodged against Petitioners with false and frivolous allegations. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner/Accused No.2 is an unmarried woman and has been pursuing Ph.D and she has been dragged into the case unnecessarily. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners.

For short ‘I.P.C’

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. The truthfulness of the said allegations will be revealed during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the case against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.131 of 2021 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakahpatnam?

Determination by the Court

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, [AIR 1992 SC 604] is considered as the guiding torch in