::ORDER::

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in SC Spl.No.109 of 2022 on the file of the learned V Additional District Sessions & Special Court for Trial of SC/STs (POA) Act Cases at Adilabad, registered for the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(u) of the SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The case of the de facto complainant is that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein and that she belongs to an ST community, while the petitioner belongs to a BC community, and that after marriage, he started abusing her in filthy language and, by taking the name of her caste, used to harass her. His family members also used to treat her as a maid in the house, and her sister-in-law used to comment that she belongs to a lower caste and that she cannot stay with them, and therefore, she is living separately. It is alleged that all the family members of the petitioner herein used to harass her. Thus, the case is registered for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(u) of the SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989. After thorough investigation, the police have laid a charge sheet for the said offences against the accused.

The petitioner herein is accused No. 1.

3. Heard the submissions of Ms.Nandini Upadya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the complaint are false and that, even if they are thoroughly perused, they would not make out any prima facie case against the petitioner herein, and that the allegations do not point out that the offence is committed in public view. Hence, no offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act gets attracted. It is further submitted that, when there are no specific allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. She, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the allegations point out the specific averments against the petitioner herein, to the effect that he used to harass the de facto complainant in the name of caste and has ill-treated her by abusing her, and that, when there are specific allegations, the proceedings before the trial Court cannot be quashed, and that the veracity of the witnesses needs to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of the charge sheet point out that the petitioner herein performed a love marriage with the de facto complainant, and for a few days they could get along well, after which he used to conceal the caste of the de facto complainant and was under the impression that if anybody comes to know about her caste, he would be looked down upon by the society. It is alleged that he used to ask the de facto complainant to divorce him. It is further alleged that he used to abuse her in the name of caste and treated her as a housemaid. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the statements of LWs 3 to 5 also do not support the case of the prosecution and that there is no incriminating material to attract the ingredients under Section 498-A of IPC. A perusal of the said statements shows that they did not state anything against the petitioner, however, it is stated that they used to hear quarrels which occurred between the accused and the de facto complainant within the house. Thus, the veracity of these witnesses needs to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is not just and proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioner her