THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.21302 of 2009 Date: 22.10.2009 Between: P.Bheema Chary Hyderabad …. Petitioner and The State of A.P. represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Regional Crime Investigation Unit, Kurnool District and others. …. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.12/2007 pending on the file of the Special Judge for the trial of the offences under SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. It may not be necessary to refer to the various factual aspects for the reason that this writ petition is nothing but abuse of process of law. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.4231 of 2007 to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.12/2007 and this Court, after elaborate discussion, considered the points raised by the petitioner in person and dismissed the said petition on 18.07.2007. Again the petitioner approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.5502 of 2007 and the said petition was also dismissed by this Court on 29.01.2009. Those two petitions were filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C i..e, invoking the inherent powers of this Court. Now, for the very same relief i.e., to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.12/2007 the present writ petition has been filed. When questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to dismissal of Crl.P.No.5502 of 2007 on 29.01.2007, the petitioner made several applications to respondents 3 and 4 i.e., the Collector, Kurnool District and the Tahasildar, Mahanandi Mandal, Kurnool District respectively, but they have neither considered the said applications nor passed any orders. Hence, this writ petition. As stated supra, twice the petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.12/2007 and this Court, after hearing the learned counsel at length, dismissed the said petitions. Now, the petitioner approached this Court and filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating that he gave representations to respondents 2 and 3 and the same are pending consideration, and therefore, the Sessions Case shall not be proceeded further. I see no merit in the above said contention merely because the petitioner approached respondents 2 and 3 and filed applications, it does not mean that the proceedings in Sessions Case can be stayed. Since the matter was already heard by this Court on two occasions, filing of this writ petition is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 22.10.2009 va