IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8084 OF 2009 Between: Avanchi Shasidhar @ Shashi Babu ..... Petitioner AND 1. B. Nirmala ..... Respondents/Complainant 2. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Through Inspector of Police, Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad. ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner to quash the FIR in Crime No.881 of 2009 of Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad District. 2. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the first respondent/de facto complainant was having friendship with the petitioner for the last eight years and the husband of the first respondent/de facto complainant came to know about the relation between his wife and the petitioner, on which quarrel between the first respondent/de facto complainant and her husband was ensued. Even then, the friendship between the first respondent/de facto complainant with the petitioner continued and they moved closely. The husband of the first respondent/de facto complainant died about five months back. When the first respondent/de facto complainant asked the petitioner on phone to come over to her, he told her that he was not having money to come over to her. Subsequently, on request of the petitioner, the first respondent/de facto complainant gave three tulas of gold and when the petitioner told the first respondent/de facto complainant about his debts, the first respondent/de facto complainant also arranged a hand loan upto Rs.70,000/- which she borrowed from the persons known to her. When the first respondent/de facto complainant demanded the petitioner to return back the money, he refused to give back the money and stated that he was not concerned with her. The respondent/de facto complainant was blessed with a daughter through the petitioner. Since the petitioner is doing injustice to the first respondent/de facto complainant and her daughter, she gave a complaint to the Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad, for taking necessary action against the petitioner. Basing on the said complaint, police registered a case in Crime No.881 of 2009, registered for the offences under Sections 497 and 420 IPC. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, it came to the light that the petitioner allegedly abused the first respondent/de facto complainant in the name of her caste and therefore, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Schedule Tribes (PoA) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’), is added to Sections 420 and 497 IPC. Hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no allegation that the first respondent/de facto complainant was abused in the name of her caste; that it is an afterthought to allege that the petitioner abused the first respondent/de facto complainant in the name of her caste; that the first respondent/de facto complainant along with some other Mahila Mandali women folk threatened the petitioner; that the petitioner lodged a complaint against the first respondent/ de facto complainant to the Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 506 IPC; and therefore, continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. 4. None appears for Respondent No.1. 5. Powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice. That being the extraordinary remedy, it can be exercised when the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 497 and 420 IPC. It is equally well settled that if the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case of the offences punishable under Sections 497 and 420 IPC, then only the question of quashing the complaint would arise. 6. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner allegedly abused the first respondent/de facto complainant in the name of her caste, but at the same time, the allegations in the complaint alone cannot be taken into consideration. During the course of investigation, it came to the light that the petitioner abused the first respondent/de facto complainant in the name of her caste. After recording the statement of the first respondent/de facto complainant by the police, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was added to Sections 497 and 420 IPC. Whether it is an improvement, or it has to be given value, are the questions of fact which are required to be decided in the trial to be conducted before the competent Criminal Court. Simply because the first respondent/de facto complainant has not averred in the complaint that she was abused in the name of her caste, that cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. In view of the fact that during the course of investigation, it came to light that the petitioner insulted or abused the first respondent/de facto complainant in the name of her caste, which attracts Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. Therefore, the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 9th October, 2009. KL