HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.1791 OF 2009 DATE: 11.11.2010 BETWEEN: P.Gowrishankar and others .. Petitioners And Smt P.Pallavi and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL.P.NO.1791 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in PR.C.No.5 of 2009 pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. Subsequent to the filing of the criminal petition, PRC was committed to the Special Judge under the Prevention of Atrocities Act and it was tried against A1 as Spl. Sessions Case No.9 of 2010. Since this Court granted stay of all proceedings against the petitioners 2 and 3, the trial against them was not taken up by the learned Special Judge. Before the learned Special Judge, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 in the course of trial. None of the material witnesses supported the prosecution version. The evidence of the de facto complainant, who was examined as PW.1, only indicates that when her husband was proceeding in procession on 24.07.2008 during the course of Bonalu Vustav in the role of Pothuraju, he fell down, but no body abused him in any manner. PW.2 stated in his deposition that no body abused him and his wife. PWs.4 and 5 deposed that on the complaint of PW.2, Trimulgherry Police registered a petty case against four persons under Section 70 of the City Police Act and Section 323 IPC and charge sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge, which was referred to by him in his judgment. Moreover, even in the report lodged by the de facto complainant with the Trimulgherry Police, it is only mentioned that the petitioners 2 and 3 were present at the time of incident and no specific allegations have been made against them. Therefore, even according to them, absolutely there is no material against the petitioners 2 and 3. Further, in view of the acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge against the first petitioner, considering the evidence of PW.1, which discloses any offence committed by any person, if the case is allowed to be continued before the learned Special Judge, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and it would cause much inconvenience and hardship to the petitioners. For the foregoing reasons, the entire proceedings in Spl. Sessions Case No.9 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs & S.Ts(POA) Act cum VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad against the petitioners 2 and 3 are hereby quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 11.11.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.1791 OF 2009 DATE: 11.11.2010