HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI Main Case No: Crl.P.No.6349 of2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 04. 19.08.2026 MRK,J IA No.1 of 2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Dispensed with for the present. Crl.P.No.6349 of 2026 1. On 28.07.2026, this Court passed the following Order: “1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and seeks time for getting instructions in the lis. 3. The petitioner herein seeks to quash the charge sheet filed against him for the offences punishable Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (Act 1 of 2016). 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is directed to serve notice to respondent Nos.2 & 3 under Section 15(A)(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in its stricto sensu and file proof of service in the Registry. 5. Issue notice to respondent Nos.2 & 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent Nos.2 & 3 through Speed Post with acknowledgement due/Email/WhatsApp, in accordance with ROC.No.165/2021-CPS, dated 17.04.2023, and file proof of service. 7. List this matter on 11.08.2026 in the adjourned Motion List.” 2 2. At the request of learned counsels, the matter was adjourned twice i.e., on 11.08.2026 and 17.08.2026, and finally, the matter was listed today. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner is aged about 55 years and is working as Principal of MJPAPBCW Residential Junior College, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam, wherein respondent Nos.2 and 3 also working as contract employees. 4. He further states that the petitioner preferred a complaint to the higher authority on 09.01.2020 against respondent Nos.2 & 3 and others as they are threatening him to foist a false case, under the cover of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. He further asserts that thereafter as a counter blast to settle private scores with the petitioner, respondent No.2 lodged FIR in Crime No.272 of 2020 dated 15.06.2020 of Gopalapatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), wherein police filed charge sheet without taking into consideration of foundational facts too. 3 6. He elaborates that respondent No.2/de- facto complainant does not belong to the SC Community. As such, petitioner preferred a complaint to the concerned authority. In turn, the District Collector, Anakapalli, after examining all the facts and circumstances and also offering due opportunity to the concerned, vide R.Dis.No.423/2022/Magl.DT dated 30.11.2023 cancelled the caste certificate of 2nd respondent. 7. He further states that against the said orders, it seems the 2nd respondent has not preferred any Appeal, as he has not received any notice from the concerned authority. Hence, the very complaint itself per se liable to be quashed. He further contends that there are no required ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner. 8. He further asserts that even if the version of the 2nd respondent is assumed to be true and correct, the alleged exchange of words took place in the office of the petitioner, and the said office is not a place within the public view, in view of its location position too. As such, offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 4 Act, 1989 does not apply. 9. Substantiating his assertions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the dictum held by the Apex Court in Gunjam alias Girija Kumari and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another1. Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2 and Karuppudayar Vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Others3. He also draws the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraphs of the above Apex Court’s judgments. 10. He emphasises that mere exchange of words between the parties who are admittedly Principal and contract employees itself does not amount to the offences under the Special enactment, which does not constitute offences. 11. At last, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in SC No.90 of 2020 on file of the Court of XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Cases, Visakhapatnam, trial has been commenced. As such, he requested to grant protection to the petitioner. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834 2 (2020) 10 SCC 710 3 2025 INSC 132 5 respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that against cancellation of the caste certificate of respondent No.2, he filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, but he fairly submits that as of now, no stay has been granted by the Appellate Authority. He further states that the petitioner abused respondent Nos.2 and 3 by referring their caste. Hence, the provisions of the Act are applicable. 13. As seen from the available material on record, District Collector, Anakapalli, vide Order vide R.Dis.No.423/2022/Magl.DT dated 30.11.2023 cancelled the caste certificate of the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant. Whereas, according to respondent No.2, he filed Appeal before the Appellate Authority, but there was no interim order as per the version of the counsel of 2nd respondent too. As such, as of now, the caste certificate of 2nd respondent does not exist in the eye of law. Conversely, respondent No.2 also has not filed a copy of Appeal or any proceedings in the Appeal before this Court. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dictums of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, matter requires further consideration at length after producing the relevant material placed by the 2nd respondent too. And also from the point of view of 3rd respondent also. 6 However, by taking note of counsel for the petitioner submission as trial concerned. Hence, learned XI Additional District Judge- cum-Special Court for SC & ST (POA) Cases, Visakhapatnam is directed to defer with SC No.90 of 2020, for a period of six (06) weeks. 15. List on 16.09.2026. ______ MRK, J Note: Issue C.C by 25.08.2026. B/o. PSA