ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[For short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 45 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.188 of 2020 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST Cases-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code[For short ‘I.P.C’] and Section 3(1) (r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[For short ‘the Act’]. 2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows: a. Respondent No.2/Complainant is the resident of Sainagar, Mudigubba Village and Mandal and has been eking out his livelihood by establishing a water plant on the subsidy given by the Government. He belongs to ST-Erikala community. On 04.05.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., while he was standing in front of his water plan, Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 came to the water plant and asked as to “Emira Neellu Vadala Ledaa”. b. When the complainant stated that due to lock down, he closed the plant at 12.00 p.m. Accused No.1 grew wild on him, caught hold his collar and abused him saying that “Emira, Erikala Lanja Kodaka, Naa Maatake Eduru Cheptaavaa”. Saying so, he threw the complainant down and beat him and thereafter, the villagers rescued him. On hearing the Police Jeep siren, Accused No.1 left that place. c. When the complainant went to the Police Station, to report the same to the Police, as the S.I of Police was not available in the Police Station, while he was returning home, on the way, at the Masjid situated beside Dorigallu Road, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 restrained him and abused him saying that “Emira, Erikala Lanja Kodakaa, Nuvventha, Nee Brathukentharaa, neecha kulamlo puttina naa kodakaa, nee brathukuki entha dhairyam unte maa meede kesu pedathavaa raa”. So saying, they all threw him down and threatened to kill him if he does not leave the village. Then the villagers came there and rescued the complainant. Though the complainant went to Mudigubba Police Station on 05.05.2020 and reported the matter, Police did not take any action. d. Till then, all the accused has been abusing him in the name of his caste and also threatening. Then the villagers came there and rescued the complainant. Though the complainant went to Mudigubba Police Station on 05.05.2020 and reported the matter, Police did not take any action. d. Till then, all the accused has been abusing him in the name of his caste and also threatening. Having no other go, the complainant left the village and has been taking shelter at his relatives’ house. As such, he lodged the present complaint against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4. 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 filed the present petition on the following grounds: a. Petitioners have not committed any offence much less the alleged offences. b. The FIR has been registered on 30.07.2020, whereas the incident alleged to have been occurred on 04.05.2020 which itself discloses that the Petitioners are falsely implicated. c. Petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.9305 of 2010 on 26.05.2020 against the Police Officials, including the S.I of Police, Mudigubba Police Station for illegally beating Petitioner No.1 in the Police Station for the incident held on 04.05.2020. The Hon’ble Court while disposing the Writ Petition has passed an order dated 26.08.2020 about the illegality of the Police. In view of the said orders, the present case has been foisted wantonly on 30.07.2020. As per the counter filed by the S.I of Police, Mudigubba Police Station, in W.P.No.9305 of 2020, nowhere it was stated about the alleged offence said to have been committed under the Act and it has been clearly stated that there was a quarrel between the parties on 04.05.2020 at about 6.30 p.m. It clearly discloses that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 would submit that the Petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the Complainant and as the Petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.9305 of 2020 before this Court and obtained orders against the Police, the present complaint was foisted against the Petitioners to wreak vengeance against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 6. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 6. Refuting the above contentions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners and at this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels 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 to 4 in C.C.No.188 of 2020 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST Cases-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act? Determination by the Court 8. 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 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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 the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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 the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Perusal of the record in the instant case would show that, the motor cycle of the Petitioner No.1 was stolen on 01.03.2020 and as such, when he went to Mudigubba Police Station to lodge a complaint, the S.I of Police, Mudigubba Police Station refused to receive the complaint and also abused the Petitioner No.1 herein with foul language. Hence, Petitioner No.1 herein filed W.P.No.9305 of 2020 against the Police Officers including the S.I of Police, Mudigubba Police Station for not registering FIR in the theft case and for illegally beating him in the Police Station for the incident occurred on 04.05.2020. Hence, Petitioner No.1 herein filed W.P.No.9305 of 2020 against the Police Officers including the S.I of Police, Mudigubba Police Station for not registering FIR in the theft case and for illegally beating him in the Police Station for the incident occurred on 04.05.2020. On the statement given by Petitioner No.1 herein before the Superintendent of Police, a case in Crime No.240 of 2020 was also registered against the S.I of Police, Mudigubba Police Station for the offences under Sections 342, 324 and 506 read with 34 IPC. 10. In W.P.No.9305 of 2020 this Court passed the Order on 26.08.2020 against the Police, which reads as under: “In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case to direct Respondent No.3- Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Nos.5 and 6 for their misconduct, leaving it open to the petitioner to file appropriate application for contempt against third respondent/Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram before the Court which passed the order on 29.05.2020 in view of the prima facie disobedience on the part of third respondent for entrusting the investigation to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dharmavaram. In the result, writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.” 11. Though it is alleged that Petitioners wrongly restrained and beat the Complainant, no wound certificate has been filed to show that the complainant sustained injuries in the hands of the Petitioners. In the counter filed by the Superintendent of Police in W.P.No.9305 of 2020 also, there is no reference about the incident alleged to have been occurred on 04.05.2020 between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 herein. 12. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in Gara Yesobu vs. State of A.P., 2005 (1) ALT (Crl.) 213 (AP), wherein, it was held as follows: "As rightly contended by Sri E.V.Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No. 3342 of 2005 (i.e., A63 to A.66) the charge is bald and does not state who among the 66 persons named as accused uttered the offending words or which of the accused said what words and/or their overt acts. A plain reading of the charge sheet shows that all the accused abused the alleged Victims. A plain reading of the charge sheet shows that all the accused abused the alleged Victims. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, it is not possible to believe that all the accused, in chorus could have uttered the same words at the same time. So prima facie prosecution for an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is an abuse of process of law." 13. As far as the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (r) and (s) of the Act is concerned, it is alleged that the Petitioners abused Respondent No.2 in the name of his caste. However, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that the accused abused him in the name of his caste within public view, which is the essential ingredient to prove the alleged offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused abused Respondent No.2 by touching his caste within public view. Further, the complaint does not disclose as to who among the accused uttered the offending words or which of the accused said what words and/or their overt acts. Therefore, it is not possible to believe that all the accused, in chorus could have uttered the same words at the same time. Therefore, in that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the offence under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act does not attract against the Petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that based on the false allegations, the present complaint was lodged against the Petitioners and there is no prima facie case made out against the Petitioners. No specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. 14. In the absence of any material against the Petitioners herein, in the light of the principles laid down in Bhajanlal’s case (supra) and Gara Yesobu’s case (supra) and in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in the present crime. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is not tenable. 15. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is not tenable. 15. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.188 of 2020 on the file of Special Court for SC/ST Cases-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.