ORDER : 1. 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 and 2 seeking quashment of proceedings against them in S.C. No. 43 of 2019 on the file of Special Court of SC & STs (PoA) Act-cum-XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 354-A and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) (a), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short ‘the Act’]. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) Respondent No. 2/Complainant, who belongs to Madiga Community used to work as a Staff Nurse in Prasanthi Hospital, Anakapalli. After getting job as A.N.M. in PHC, Thummapala, she left the hospital. However, at the request of the Doctor, she used to assist him in the hospital and also in surgeries, for which, the Doctor used to pay remuneration to her. (b) Accused Nos. 1 and 2, are the relatives of the Doctor. Accused No. 1 underwent a surgery in the hospital and she was inpatient for about 15 days in the said hospital. Accused No. 1 bore grudge against the Complainant thinking that she developed illegal intimacy with the Doctor. Accused No. 2 used to try to molest the Complainant several times. (c) Accused No. 2, on one day, caught hold the hand of the Complainant, pulled and demanded her to fulfill his lust. Accused No. 1 abused the Complainant in the public place by touching her caste as Mala, Madiga woman and insulted her. As such, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No. 212 of 2018 of Anakapalli Town Police Station for the above said offences. After due investigation of the case, Police filed charge sheet which was numbered as S.C. No. 43 of 2019. 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the following grounds: (a) Petitioners were falsely implicated into the crime. (b) As seen from the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, there are no specific incidents with specific dates. 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the following grounds: (a) Petitioners were falsely implicated into the crime. (b) As seen from the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, there are no specific incidents with specific dates. (c) Petitioner No. 1 has given a complaint against the Complainant and the Doctor alleging that they illegally demanded Rs.10 lakhs from her and both of them locked her apartment and did not allow her, which was not registered by the Police. (d) There is a delay of nine months in lodging the FIR, which was not explained by the Complainant and the same itself shows that the said complaint and the statements recorded by the Police are all fabricated. (e) The Doctor also did not support the case of the Complainant with regard to the alleged incident. (f) The complainant nowhere in the compliant mentioned as to utterance of any word or gesture referring to her caste as such, there is no case made out to invoke the provisions of the Act. (g) As a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the Petitioner No. 1 against Respondent No. 2 and the said Doctor, the present complaint has been lodged against the Petitioners with false and untenable allegations. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are bald and omnibus. Petitioner/Accused No. 1 has given a complaint to the Police against Respondent No. 2 and the Doctor on 28.04.2018, but the same was not registered as a case. Having grudge against the Petitioners, the present complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2 on 22.09.2018 belatedly after the alleged incident dated 23.12.2017. The Doctor also did not support the case of Respondent No. 2 with regard to the alleged incident. No prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners for the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. The Doctor also did not support the case of Respondent No. 2 with regard to the alleged incident. No prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners for the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 . 6. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the material available on record is sufficient to make out a case against the Petitioners. She would further submit that it is not possible to ascertain the veracity of allegations at this stage, and the matter requires trial. Hence, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners cannot sustain at this stage. Therefore, she would pray for dismissal of the criminal petition. Point for Determination: 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 43 of 2019 on the file of Special Court of SC & STs (PoA) Act-cum-XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 354-A and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) (a), 3(2)(va) 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. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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. 9. 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. (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. (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) 10. In the case on hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that Petitioner/Accused No. 1 lodged a report against Respondent No. 2 and the Dr. Ch. Pandu Ranga Rao alleging that they illegally demanded Rs.10 lakhs from her and they both locked her apartment by not allowing her into the same, but the same was not registered by the Police. As a counterblast to the said complaint, the present complaint was filed against the Petitioners with false and untenable allegations. Ch. Pandu Ranga Rao alleging that they illegally demanded Rs.10 lakhs from her and they both locked her apartment by not allowing her into the same, but the same was not registered by the Police. As a counterblast to the said complaint, the present complaint was filed against the Petitioners with false and untenable allegations. Though the complaint lodged by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 has not been registered, in the present complaint, Respondent No. 2 clearly admitted about the said fact. 11. Further, the alleged incident in the present case had occurred on 23.12.2017, whereas, the present complaint was filed on 22.09.2018 i.e., after nine months of the incident. There is no plausible explanation offered by Respondent No. 2 for lodging the complaint belatedly after nine months of the alleged incident. It is trite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 Live Law (SC) 1033 wherein it was observed on the aspect of delay and quashment as follows: “25. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. Further, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses reveal that, none of them were present at the time of the alleged incident. As per the Complaint, the allegation of abusing Respondent No. 2 in the name of her caste was not within public view. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered in any place within public view, is not made out. The witnesses who were cited in the charge sheet were not the persons, who were present at the time of the alleged incident. There are no specific instances or overt acts attributed against the Petitioners, which would attract the offences alleged against them. 13. In the absence of any material against the Petitioners herein, in the light of the principles laid down in Bhajanlal’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 and 2 in the present crime. In the absence of any material against the Petitioners herein, in the light of the principles laid down in Bhajanlal’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 and 2 in the present crime. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 43 of 2019 on the file of Special Court of SC & STs (PoA) Act-cum-XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offences under Sections 354-A and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) (a), 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, are hereby quashed. 15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.