ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.77 of 2021 on the file of Thulluru Police Station, Thulluru, Guntur District registered for the offences under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code[for short ‘IPC’] and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[for short ‘the Act’]. 2. Facts of the case, in epitome, are as follows: a. Respondent No.2/Complainant has been attending coolie works and also driving a tractor. In support of the three capitals agitation, he regularly attends the camp of “Bahujana Parirakshana Samiti” at Seed Access Road Junction, Thallayapalem. That being so, on 08.03.2021 in the morning he went to Mangalagiri on personal work and returned to the said camp. On the same day at about 4.00 p.m., while Respondent No.2 and one Suddapalli Ravi were going on his bike towards Rayapudi, and when they reached to the turning of Velagapudi-Rayapudi Villages from Modugulankapalem Village, the Petitioner/Accused, who was coming in car in opposite direction, stopped the car and got down from the Car. On seeking Blue coloured towels on their necks, she gave slogans as “Jai Amaravati” and on recognizing Respondent No.2, she scolded against him saying that “Emira George, neevu Bahujana Parirakshana Samiti lo active gaa tiruguchunnavu kadaa. Aina Mee SC Kulam Naa Kodukulaku Entha Vivaramgaa cheppinaa kuda, Amaravati Udyamamlo palgonakunda, mudu rajadhanula sibiramlo velli kurchuntunnaru. Mee SC kulam vaari valana Amaravati Udyamam paruvu pothundi. Randi Maatho kalasi udyamam cheyandi.” By abusing so in the name of his caste, the Petitioner also threatened to see his end if he does not participate in “Amaravati Udyamam”. b. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.77 of 2021 on the file of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District for the alleged offences. Grounds for quashment: 3. b. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.77 of 2021 on the file of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District for the alleged offences. Grounds for quashment: 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioner filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against her, on the following grounds: a. Respondent No.1 has totally failed to notice that even as per the FIR, Respondent No.2 was not insulted in the name of his community and as such, the ingredients of the alleged Sections of Law do not attract. b. The delay in making the present complaint would clearly show that the present case was foisted only to take vengeance against the Petitioner as she is actively participating in Amaravati Movement against the Government. c. Even according to Respondent No.2, he was identified by the Petitioner as George and as such, the very foundation of this case is vitiated as Respondent No.2 does not belong to SC Community. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is the sole Accused and the offences that are alleged against the Petitioner are under Sections 294 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Act. It is stated that the alleged incident said to have occurred on 08.03.2021 at 4.00 p.m. It is pointed out that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner are very vague and there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner. The complaint would not reveal that the alleged offence occurred within public view. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was very active and in forefront in Amaravati agitation. It is also stated that several cases have been lodged against the Petitioner in Crime Nos.63 of 2021, dt.08.03.2021, 64 of 2021, dt.08.03.2021, 66 of 2021, dt.10.03.2021, and 162 of 2021, dt.09.03.2021 and that the present case is squarely falling under guidelines 5 and 7 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . 6. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that there is every possibility of the Petitioner committing several crimes on the same day. It is stated that in the present case, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner that she insulted the Complaint in the name of his caste within public view. It is also stated that in view of the stay, the investigation could not be done and therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioner at the threshold cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the 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 Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.77 of 2021 on the file of Thulluru Police Station, Thulluru, Guntur District? 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. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. In Bhajanlal’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paras 102 and 103, held as follows: “102. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. In Bhajanlal’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paras 102 and 103, held 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. (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. (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. A fair look at the contents of the complaint would show that the Petitioner’s group has been making protest to protect Amaravati as capital of the State. On the other hand, the Complainant’s group has been protesting to support the ruling party and their concept of ‘three capitals”. It is alleged that when the car in which the Petitioner was travelling, was about to hit the motorcycle of the Complainant, he applied sudden brakes. At that juncture, there was a dialogue alleged to have been uttered by the Petitioner which turned into the present case. The complaint does not disclose the presence of any public at that time and place of the incident. It also does not reveal any abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the Petitioner against the Complainant touching his caste. 11. The complaint does not disclose the presence of any public at that time and place of the incident. It also does not reveal any abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the Petitioner against the Complainant touching his caste. 11. Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act discloses an offence to intentionally insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in any place within a public view and Section 3 (1)(s) punishes abusing of any member of SC/ST by caste name in any place within a public view. Both these clauses commonly require such insult or intimidation or abuse “in any place within a public view”. It is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469, wherein, emphasis is made on the necessity of “public view”, which is a basic ingredient to attract the offence, as follows; “17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21stJanuary, 2016 filed by the I.O., it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In the instant case, perusal of the complaint discloses no offence as alleged by Respondent No.2 has been committed by the Petitioner /Accused. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present.” (emphasis supplied) 12. In the instant case, perusal of the complaint discloses no offence as alleged by Respondent No.2 has been committed by the Petitioner /Accused. Even if the allegations are accepted to be true, the alleged conversation between two persons i.e., Respondent No.2 and Accused only, was not within a public view. There is absolutely no material in the complaint showing the commission of any offence, much less the alleged offences by the Petitioner/Accused. Further, there is no material or no specific allegation against the Petitioner with regard to the commission of the offence under Sections 294 and 506 IPC. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the allegations leveled against the Petitioner are so absurd and improbable and are manifestly attended with a mala fide intention and an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Petitioner/Accused. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner /Accused and the material produced before this Court directly indicate mala fides in initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in the above crime. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioner /Accused in Crime No.77 of 2021 on the file of Thulluru Police Station, Thulluru, Guntur District for the offences under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.