APHC010167342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2412 OF 2024 Between: 1. Balaga Shoban @ Shoban Kumar, S/o. Balaga Venkata Ramana, Aged 33 year, Occ; Business, R/o. Dr.No. 16-25, Pandurangapuram, Arilova, Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapatnam District - 530 040. 2. Balaga Prathap @ Pratap Kumar, S/o. Balaga Venkata Ramana, Aged 31 year, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Dr.No. 16-25, Pandurangapuram, Arilova, Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapatnam District - 530 040. (A3) 3. Balaga Rajeswari, W/o. Balaga Venkata Ramana, Aged 56 year, Occ: House Hold, R/o. Dr.No. 16-25, Pandurangapuram, Arilova, Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapatnam District - 530 040. 4. Balaga Venkata Ramana, S/o. Balaga Chiimapa, Aged 58 year, Occ: Cook, R/o. Dr.No. 16-25, Pandurangapuram, Arilova, Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapatnam District - 530 040. (A2) (A4) (A5) 5. Balaga Surya Kumari, W/o. Balaga Shoban Kumar, Aged 30 year, Occ: House Hold, R/o. Dr.No. 16-25, Pandurangapuram, Arilova, Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapatnam District - 530 040. (A6) ...Petitloners/A-2,3, 4, 5 & 6 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court, Amaravathi ...Respondent Late Ramu, Aged about 27 years, Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam 2. Tampala Sanjayani, D/o. R/o.Dr.No.16-145, Chinagadili City, Visakhapatnam District - 530 040. ...Respondent/Defacto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records in S.C.No.99 of 2023 on the file of the Court of The XI Additional District Judge - cum - Special Court For SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam and quash the same against the petitioners herein. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in S.C.No.99 of 2023 the file of the Court of The XI Additional District Judge - cum - Special Court For SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the quash petition.' Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Uday Kumar Vampugadavala, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for Respondent No.2: -- The Court made the following order: may on I' APHC010167342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2412/2024 Between: 1.BALAGA SHOBAN, S/O. BALAGA VENKATA RAMANA, (A2) AGED BUSINESS. PANDURANGAPURAM, ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 040. R/O.DR.NO. 33 YEAR, OCC 16-25, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, 2.BALAGA PRATHAP,, S/O. BALAGA VENKATA RAMANA. (A3) AGED R/O.DR.NO. 16-25, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN. 31 YEAR, OCC PANDURANGAPURAM, ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 040. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, 3.BALAGA RAJESWARI,, W/0. BALAGA VENKATA RAMANA, (A4) AGED 56 YEAR, OCC PANDURANGAPURAM, ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 040. R/O.DR.NO. 16-25, HOUSE HOLD, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN. 4.BALAGA VENKATA RAMANA,, S/O. BALAGA CHIIMAPA, (A5) AGED 58 YEAR, OCC COOK, R/O.DR.NO. 16-25, PANDURANGAPURAM. ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 040. 5.BALAGA SURYA KUMARI,, W/0. BALAGA SHOBAN KUMAR, (A6) AGED 30 YEAR, OCC HOUSE HOLD, PANDURANGAPURAM, ARILOVA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 040. R/O.DR.NO. 16-25, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 2 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. 2.TAMPALA SANJAYANI, D/0, LATE RAMU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O.DR.NO.16-145, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 040. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): CHINAGADILI, PANDURANGAPURAM, Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) / 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA r CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2412/2024 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 6, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against them in S.C.No.99 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional District Judge -cum- Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and 3(1 )(r), 3(1 )(s), 3(2)(va) of SC’s & ST’s POA Act. Heard Sri Uday Kumar Vampugadavala, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice is served on the respondent No.2, none 2. appeared. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners 3. herein are accused Nos. 2 to 6. They are the family members of accused No.1. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are mother and father of the accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of Accused No.1 and Accused No.6 is the wife of accused No.2. It is further submitted that, no case is made out against the Petitioners for the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have nothing to do with the present case. The allegations levelled in the present case are that the accused No.1 had 4 physical relationship with the defacto complainant under the guise of love and thereafter denied to marry her. After that, the matter was put before the elders, but A1 did not agree to marry the defacto complainant members sought time. It is further alleged that when the defacto found that A-1 is going to marry another woman, she informed but the family complainant the elders about the same. It is alleged that on 09.06.2022, the petitioners visited the house of defacto complainant and asked her not to disturb the with another woman. On her refusal, they abused the defacto marriage of A1 complainant in the name of caste, questioning her character and threatened her. Due to said humiliation, she had taken oleander seeds but her mother shifted her to the Hospital. Except these allegations, there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioners herein. Hence, prayed to quash the against the Petitioners. In support of his contention, learned proceedings counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another' in and High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kamlesh Rani v. Vijay Munjal and another". 4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners, which offences against them and that there attract the alleged no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal are of the petition. (2020) 10 see 710 ^ 2024 (l)ReR(eriminal) 769 5 Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on 5. record, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegations levelled against the petitioners/A2 to A6 are to the effect that they abused the defacto complainant in name of caste and questioned her character, when she approached the petitioners for the marriage of her with Accused No.1. Except the allegation that the Petitioners threatened defacto complainant with dire consequences and abused her in the name of caste, there is nothing to show that the Petitioners threatened to cause an injury to her and it would not disclose any intention to cause alarm to defacto complainant. Based on the mere allegation of threatening without any substantial material, continuation of proceedings for the offence under Section 506 IPC would be an abuse of process of law. With regard to the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCSI Act, the offences under SCSI Act cannot be established merely on the fact that Respondent No.2 belongs to SC-Mala Community unless there is an intention to humiliate her for the reason that she belongs to such caste. Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act discloses 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”. However, in the present case, there is no reference to the fact that the alleged humiliation has happened in a public view. an 6 At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr^, wherein, emphasis is made on the necessity of “public view”, which is a basic ingredient to attract the offence, as follows; 6. “77. 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 21^^January, 2016 filed by the 1.0., 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 suppliedj In the instant case, a perusal of the complaint discloses the allegations of abusing defacto complainant but there is no reference to the effect that it is in public view. Hence, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. Therefore, it can be said that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners do not make out a prime facie case 7. " 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469 7 In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against them case to exercise the Accordingly, the oriminal petition is allowed and the proceedings S.C.No.99 of 2023 on 8. initiated against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 i the file of the Court of the XI in Additional District Judge -cum- Special Court for for the offences punishable under Sections of IPC and 3(1 )(r). 3(1 )(s), 3(2)(va) of SC’s & ST’s SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam 376, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 POA Act are hereby quashed in so As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any far it relates to the petitioners/A2 to A6. shall stand closed. SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFl assistant registrar I // ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To - Special Court For SC & ST XI Additional District Judge - cum cases, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam District. Vampugadavala, Advocate [OPUC] Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. [OUT] 1. The 2. One CC to Sri Uday Kumar 3. Two CC’s to the Public i 4. Three CD Copies GPC AL HIGH COURT DATED: 21/08/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 2412 OF 2024 t=>\ Jr) =( 2 3 SEP 2025 J Trent Sectioax^ 'ac-y ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION