THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1752 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in crime no.334 of 2008 of Raidurgam police station, Rajendranagar mandal, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy district. 2. On the complaint dated 22.12.2008 lodged by the second respondent herein, police registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) and investigated into. The petitioner herein is A.2. Four witnesses were examined by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Division, who is the investigating officer. They stated that A.1 and A.2 abused the second respondent/defacto complainant, L.W.2-U.Shyamsunder Rao and L.W.3-U.Harikrishna @ Katakam in filthy language and insulted them by taking their caste name. 3. Heard both sides. 4. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the Code. When the allegations in the complaint, statements of witnesses and the charge sheet made out a prima facie case for the offence alleged, the question of quashing the same does not arise. 5. Intentionally abusing a person belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in the name of his caste in any public place and public view, by a person not a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, is an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The allegations would clearly go to show that the petitioner/A.2 abused the second respondent/defacto complainant in the name of her caste. Investigation into this case was conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He examined the complainant and other independent witnesses, who specifically stated that the present petitioner abused the second respondent/defacto complainant in the name of her caste. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is executed between the parties and hence continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. But, that cannot be a ground to quash the impugned proceedings. Whether the said MoU was executed or not, has to be decided and determined during trial of the case. In view of the fact that the allegations in the charge sheet make out a prima facie case for the offence alleged, the question of quashing the same at this stage does not arise. 7. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ----------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 06.08.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1752 of 2009 Date: 6.8.2010 Between: P.Swarupa …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1752 of 2009 6.8.2010