ORDER : B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. 1. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 & 2 in S.C. No. 61 of 2016 on the file of learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SC & ST (POA) Act Cases at LB Nagar, which is outcome of the report of the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. A1 is by name M. Pratap Reddy business man, A.2-M. Ravinder Reddy, an advocate and the defacto complainant is an employee in ECIL, all are residents of ECIL area. In fact crime No. 464 of 2014 was registered on the private complaint of the defacto complainant against the accused persons by Kushaiguda PS on 17.06.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 384 & 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act (for short 'the Act') from said private complaint referred to police by the learned Magistrate. 2. The sum and substance of the accusation in the private complaint is that the defacto complainant is working in ECIL since 1992 belongs to SC by caste, A1 known to him and A2 is son of A1 and they are OC by caste and A1 was doing real estate business in Kapra Municipality limits of Nagaram area and there is property dispute between A1 and the complainant and in that regard A1 earlier abused and insulted the complainant by using caste name and he approached Kushaiguda PS and in view of the pending property dispute police did not take action against A1 and elders of both sides made an amicable settlement between them where A1 orally admitted to settle the property dispute in due course and thereby complainant did not choose to take further action to file complaint. However A1 having bored grudge against the complainant to take revenge, waiting for chance, on 17.04.2014 at 12.30 Noon when complainant went to SBI, ECIL branch with L.W. 2 by name K. Prakash Goud for verification of his bank account transaction and to get his passbook updated, the bank authorities asked to come on another date to update and when complainant came out of the bank within 5 minutes A1 and his son came there on motorcycle bearing No. AP-29-AJ-8728 and started abusing the complainant in filthy as 'Madiga lanja koduka nannu police case petty stationku pilipisthava neeku nenu property settlement cheyyan emi peekuntavu peekora Madiga lanja koduka natho pettukunte nee family mothannin roduku edushtha ninnu addanga narikestha' and tried to caught hold of the shirt of the complainant however L.W. 2 tried to stop their unlawful action and same is also witnessed by L.W. 3-K. Yadagiri who was present at that time and A2 also threatened the complainant with dire consequences to see his end if he raised any claim over the disputed property. He mentioned of on people gathered the accused fled away and there is life threat to him and even he approached police immediately they did not take action as accused has political powerful and no other way maintained the complaint. With the complaint filed on 25.04.2014 for the incident allegedly happened on 17.04.2014 with no even copy of police report if at all given on 17.04.2014 as enclosure with no explanation for the delay in waiting for such period of 8 days. The police after investigation by examining 5 witnesses viz., Y. Venkateswar Rao of Kushaiguda-L.W. 5, G. Bixapathi-L.W. 4, K. Yadagiri referred in the complaint as L.W. 3, K. Prakash Goud referred as L.W. 2 besides defacto complainant-L.W. 1 and filed final report as lack of evidence saying by L.W. 4 & 5 of accused were not at the ECIL and what L.W. 2 & 3 stated is it was informed by the complainant of accused abused him and to stand as witness and thereby but for the version of the complainant there is no other witness came forward to substantiate the witness of any occurrence. From this sufficient to say there is no public view and the final report was accepted of no public view and there is no any extortion much less ingredients of Section 506 IPC of that caused alarm in the mind of the defacto complainant from any fear of alarm from accused and the final report was accepted. Therefrom the defacto complainant raised the protest with his version in the protest petition that police with mala fide intention and to aiding the accused delayed the investigation for 7 months and not examined the cited witnesses and those available at scene of offence which is at SBI, ECIL branch and filed closed report as lack of evidence and defacto complainant is ready to produce oral evidence of himself and other witnesses against the final report submitted by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal Division, hence to take cognizance for the offences supra. 3. The order of the learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statements of the complainant T. Rajaiah as L.W. 1, Prakash Goud and Yadagiri as L.Ws. 2 & 3 is that as per their statements on 17.04.2014 at 12.30 Noon A.1 and A.2 abused the complainant touching his caste name and there is prima facie case thereby against the accused made out in taking cognizance and committing the case to the Special Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Said order dated 09.08.2016 is the impugnment herein. The sworn statement on the protest petition that of the defacto complainant is on 17.04.2014 at 12.30 Noon when he went to SBI, ECIL Branch, A1 and his son came there and started abusing in filthy touching his caste and thereafter he filed a complaint before the Court and it was referred to police and police filed final report of lack of evidence hence he prays the Court to take cognizance against the accused and to punish the accused. L.W. 2 stated he observed the accused and complainant quarreling with each other and in the meantime accused abused the complainant taking the caste name and threatened to kill and L.W. 3 also stated that the accused and complainant quarreling with each other and in the meantime accused abused the complainant taking the caste name and threatened to kill. 4. There is nothing from L.Ws. 4. There is nothing from L.Ws. 2 & 3 of what is the actual abuse touching the caste name which is with intention to intentional insult to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act in public view. In the absence of showing what are the abuses and L.Ws. 2 & 3 on the protest petition supra did not even state that they did not state as per their statements covered by the police final report as L.Ws. 2 & 3, what all stated during investigation is they came to know from only the complainant and were not present, whereas in the present protest petition averments as if present. In the absence of explaining of they did not so state and police was managed to record their subsequent versions cannot be given credence to say any offence made out. Furthermore along with the quash petition the material is filed showing that the defacto complainant is not continuing as SC having been converted as Christian and thereby not entitled to the provisions of the SC & ST Act for that filed G.O.Ms. No. 159 GA (Ser. D) Department dated 02.04.1981 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh that Harijan converts into Christianity and their progeny comes under BC-C category and will lose the privileges of SC and it is stated the defacto complainant filed counter affidavit in M.C. No. 188 of 2015 on the file of Additional District Court-cum-Family Court at Malkajgiri and opposing the maintenance claim of his wife saying he born in Madiga community and in due course preferred Christian religion and attending spiritual speeches to the devotees of Christian religion and his marriage was solemnized under Christian Marriage Act on 19.05.1985 that copy is filed as part of the material which is at pages 46 to 48 of the quash petition material. The defacto complainant did not oppose the same even prior through advocate in contesting the matter that clearly establishes that he is a converted Christian and professing Christianity and he married his wife under Christian Marriage Act provisions and governed by that, thereby he is not entitled to claim as still SC by caste and the expression of this Court in Chinni Appa Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh in 2016 (1) ALT (Crl.) 387 (A.P.) : Crl.P. No. 2036 of 2013 dated 07.12.2015 is crystal clear in this regard. 5. 5. Having regard to the above and for all these reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the accused Nos. 1 & 2 (petitioners) in S.C. No. 61 of 2016. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.