THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.12370 of 2023

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in SC No.150 of 2023 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar.

02. The case of the complainant/respondent No.2 is that she is working in Urvi Technologies where she met accused No.1 and after developing acquaintance with her, accused No.1 expressed his love for her, for which she sought some time. While so, while she was staying with her friend in a room accused No.1 used to visit her and said that he would marry her and on one day when she was sick, accused No.1 came to her and had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Later the accused No.2 refused for the marriage of accused No.1 with the defacto complainant, as she belongs to SC by community, due to which accused No.1 has quarreled with the defacto complainant and bluntly refused to marry her. Based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, police registered a case in Cr.No.1724 of 2022 for the offences punishable under sections 376(2) (n), 417,420 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v), Section 3(1) (r) (s) of SC and ST (POA)

Act-1989.

03. Heard M/s. Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence under section 3(1) (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is concerned, it deals with “abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view” and as evident from the material record of the assailed case, there are no allegations against the petitioner that she had abused the respondent No.2 by her caste name in any place within public view, as such, the said offence is not attracted against the petitioner. It is further submitted that even if the entire material of the case is taken into consideration, the acts alleged against her do not constitute the offences satisfying the ingredients even on a prima facie basis. He further submits that the continuation of the proceedings against her is an abuse of the process of law and it is a fit case where this Court can use its discretionary powers in quashing the proceedings of the above case and prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

05. He relied on a Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2021) 1 SCC (Cri), wherein it was held in para 15 as under: “15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basis ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh v. State², it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.”

06. Learned counsel further submits that the very lodging of the complaint is malafide, illegal and abuse of process of SC/ST(POA) and the process of law and the ingredients of the

2 (2008) 8 SCC 435: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527

offence are not made out and prayed to allow the criminal petition.

07. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner an