The High Court · 2025

Petition undr-.r Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that I the ctrcumstances stated in the lVlemc,randum of Grounds of criminal Petitior. ihe Hrgh court may be pleased to QUI\SH the FIR No 361 of 2021 of P S . Iledchal, Cyberabad Commissionerate. dated O3lO4t2O21, Sec 323 lPC, 3(i)(l)( ) 3(i)(l)(s) SC ST POA Act, 201 5 the same is untenable either on facts or und: law ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition unde:r Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that rr the circumstances stated in the Memc)randum of Grounds of Criminal Petittorr lhe High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings pursuant to Fl; No 361 of 2021 of P.S., Medchal, Cyberabad C omm tsstonerate, dated 03.04 2t,.)21, under Sec 323 lPC, 3(i)(l)(r), 3(i)( )(s) SC ST POA Act. 2O 15 includinl appearance of the Petitioners / Accused no.1 to 9 pendrng disposal of the rnarn .lrinrinal Petition l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 BETWEEN M. Kavitha, Wo tr/. Krupananda Rao, Aged About 49 Years, Occ. Govt. Teacher, ZPHS (13irls), Ir/edchal R/o H no 8 361/8, lr,4 N Recdy Nagar, Near Naik School, Chintal, ()uthbullapur, Hyderabad - 500 055 ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 1 2 M. Rathnamala, D/o. Bal Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ. (l rvt Teacher, H.no.8- 5-147lB,lVlallit<arjuna Colony, Road no 4, Old Bowenpally Secunderabad -11 Jakki Reddy l)rashanthi, D/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged ' i' Years, Occ Govt. Teacher, Rlo. H no.'1 -5-949, New Maruthinagar, Kothap.' t, Hyderabad - 500 060.

3. Vasuri Prameela Devi, D/o Teacher, R/o. H.no.5-94164, District - 502 31 9 Vasuri Alluraiah, Aged 48 Years, Occ. Govt. Patelguda, Krishna Red,i,pet, Sanga Reddy

4. G. Sree Latha D/o G.Y. Ramaiah, Aged 55 Years, Occ. liovt Plot no.302, Block no.6, D V Township. Sudhanagar Cclcny R.K Puram, Hyderabad - 500 056 Teacher, R/o. Old Safilguda, -

5. M Usha Kiran, D/o M Ram Reddy, Aged 45 Years, Occ Govt Teacher R/o - H no.s-s 7e9/A, Phase-|, Vijayapuii C5tony, Vansathalipure-Hyderabad - 500 070

6. P. Nlaniusha Rani, D/o. P. Balram, Aged 50 Years, Occ' Govt Teacher' R/o' - fta,t i6.ZOZ, Jaganidhi Apartments, Rasoolpura, Police Line, Begumpet Secunderabad - 500 003

7. B. Vpya Bharathi Bai, D/o. B Hari Singh,4ged 51 Years, Occ Govt Teacnei, R/o. Villa no.16, GLR Parkview Enclave, Behind Big Bazar Kompally, Hyderabad -500 100

8. G. Radhika. D/o. G. Nagaratnam, Aged 57 Years, Occ. Govt Teacher, R/o flat no 1302 Omega B-lock, Rajapushpa Atria, Kokapet, R R District - 500 075.

9. G. Vijaya Laxmr, D/o G Bhadranna, Aged 49.Y-ears, Occ Govt' Teacher' Rto. H io.l -242, Vinayakanagar Colony, tvledchal 501 401. ...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS

10. The State of Telangana, through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana TS .RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased To vacate the interim order dtd: 281412021 granted in I A No i/202'1 in irl.p. NO.3437t2O21 and dismrss the quash petition CrlP No.3457/2021 with COSTS l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021 BETWEEN The State of Telangana, through Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad ..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND 1 2 tvl, Rathnamala, D/o Bal Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ. Govt Teacher, H no-B- 5-1aiE, Mallirariuna Colony, Rbad-no 4, oid Bowenpally' Secunderabad -1 1 Jakki Reddy Prashanthi, D/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged 45 Years, Occ GovL iui.n"r, Rio H no t-s-g49, New tt/aruthinagir' Kbthapet, Hyderabad - 500 060. -r--*.ffi92 , :,-!#r,

3. Vasuri Pram,:ela Devi, D/o. Vasuri Alluraiah, Aged Teacher, R/o H.no.5-94164, Patelguda. Krishna Rer District - 502 319 4 iJ Years, Occ i lypet Sanga Govt Reddy

4. G. Sree Lath,t, D/o. G.Y Ramaiah, Aged 55 Years' Ocr Govt' Teacher, R/o' PIot no.302. Slock no.6, D V. Townsh-rp. Sudhanagar - >lony, OId Safilguda, R.K.Puram, Flyderabad - 500 056

5. M. Usha Kirarr, Dio IV. Ram Reddy, Aged 45 Years' Ot:t' Govt Teacher Rlo. H. no.5-3-789,'4, Phase-1, Vilayapu-ri Colony. Vansathalp.rre-Hyderabad - 500 070

6. P. il/anjusha Rani, D/o. P Balram, Aged 50 Years, Occ Govt. Teacher, R/o Flal n6.202. Jaganidhi Apartments. Rasoolpura. Pclr;e Line Begumpet' Secunderaba I - 500 003

7. B Vijaya Bharathi Bai, D/o B Harr Singh Aged 11 Years, Occ. Govt .16, GLR Parkview Enclave Behind Big Bazar, Teache'r, R/o. Villa no. Kompally, Hyrlerabad -500 100

8. G Radhika, t)/o G. Nagaratnam, Aged 57 Years. Ocr; Govt Teacher, R/o Flat no.1302, Omega Block, Ralapushpa Atria' Kokalr"t' R.R District - 500 075.

9. G Vijaya Laxmi, D/o. G. Bhadranna, Aged 49 Y-ears .)cc. Govt. Teacher' R/o. H.no 1-2.72 Yinayakanagar Colony. tVledchal 501 4( | ..RESP()I{DENTS/ACCUSED '10.M. Kavitha, Dio. not known to Petitioner, Aged lVlalor, Ccc Govt. Teacher' ZPHS (Girls), Medchal R/o H no S 361i8, MN Reddy N:'rar. Near Naik School, Chintitl, Quthbullapur, Hyderabad - 500 055 (R-'10 is not necessary party) RESPON D : l.lT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P C praying that i' the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitron, he High Court may be pleased To vaca:e the stay in lA No.1/2021 in Crl.P 345t t2021 on the file of Hon'ble High Court <1t.281412021 This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing :lr3 [/]emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumr:rrts of Sri K BUCHI BABU ,Advocate fc,r the Petitioner and l\,4 r tvl.Vivekanan l " Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and Sr \/ohd Shahabuddin Advocate for the Re:;pondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3457 of 2021 ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.36l of 2021 on the file of the Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3(iXlX$ and 3(iXlXs) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrooities) Amendrnent Act, 201 5 (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act')

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 03.04.2021, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she is working asa Secondary Grade Bioscience Teacher at ZPHS (Girts), Medchal. She rnentioned that earlier, while proceeding in school, her leg accidentally touched Teacher Rathnamala. Following this, Teachers Rathnamala and Prashanthi allegedly abused her in the name of caste and attacked her by throwing chairs. Another Teacher, Prameela, also supported them. Furthermore, the complainant stated that Rathnamala, Prashanthi, Prameela, along with Srilatha, Usha Kiran, Manjusha, 2 Vijayabarathi, Radhika, and Vijayalakshmi, had 1.een mentally harassing her. Hence, the prcscnt crime was register,:

3. When the matter was taken up fbr ctr r . ideration on

13.10.2025, there was no representation on behal I .,f respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual modc [o eive one opportunity, the matter was posted to 16.10.2025 urr jr.:r the caption 'fbr orders'. On 1'1 .10.2025 also, there was no rcl-r (..serltation on behalf of respondent No.2. However, to give one m( , -, opportunity, the matter was posted to 23.10.2025. On 23.10.2(ll:j also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners (,. rcspondent No.2, either in the morning or aftemoon session, rr physical or virtual mode. To give final opportunity to the partic.,. the matter was posted to 03.1 1.2025. Even today, there is no rep r.,serrtation on behatf of respondent No.2, either in physical or i ftual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed ri i r tlre matter on ments.

4. Heard lvlr.Chakradhar Reddy, learned counscl -epresenting Mr.K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for petrtroners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, leamed Assistant Public I,r'rsecutor for respondent No. I Y ) a

5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners havc not committed any offence and respondent No.2 has falsely implicated them in the present crime on the ground that petitioner No.6, who is the Head Master ol ZPHS (Cirls), Medchal, along with other teachers, had lodged complaint against respondent No.2 on 26.03.2021, before the District Educational Officer, Medchat. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint r,vith lalse allegations, implicating the petitioners for olfences punishable under the provisions ol SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, though the petitioners never abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners. He further submitted that petitioner Nos. i to 5 and 7 to 9 are teachers, who have been discharging their duties to the utrnost satislaction of the students and higher officials, and there are no complaints against them. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse ofthe process of law

6. Per contra, the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. Whether 4 the petition:rs have committed the offence or r:r rt has to be revealed dr"ring the course of invcstigation. Irerelbre, thc pctitioners are not entitled to seek quashment ol tl t. proceedings, and the ltetition is liable to be dismissed '7. Havinl3 considered the rival submissions rrrade by the respective p;rrties and after perusal of the materii I available on reoord it rr:veals that petitioner Nos. I to 5 au I 7 to 9 are Government 'feachers, and petitioner No.6 is the r:adrnaster of ZPHS (Cirls), Medchal. The respondent No.2lde-fac, t, complainant is also u,orking as a Government Teacher in the sa tl school. The record furthr:r discloses that petitioner No.6, alorr.: u,ith other teachers, lodged complaint against respondent '.o-2/de-fac to complainant refore the District Educational OIficer Mcclchal, on

26.03.2021, alleging that respondent No.2 was obr;rrucring thcir official duties, interfering in administrative mattcr., provoking students to write unnecessary remarks against the pr: rtioners, and degrading as well as insulting them. The said c,t rplaint was received by the District Educational Officer on27.03.21121

8. The specific case of the petitioners is tha duc to the complaint lodged by petitioner No.6 along with trt'rer teachers I 5 before the District Educational Officer, rcspondent No.2, with an oblique motive, has filed the present complaint as a counterblast, falsely implicating them for the olfences under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act

9. Upon perusal of the complaint, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients ofatleged offences. I0. ln Ramesh Chandra ltaislrya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anothert , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must be caste-specific, intentional, and made in a place within public view. Since the alleged abuse occured in a private setting without reference to caste or public presence, the essential ingredients of the offence were missing. Finding no credible evidence even for the IPC charges under Sections 323 aod 504, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process. I l. ln Sandhya Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and anothei, the Allahabad High Court observed that for an offence under the ' (2023) t7 scc 6t5 ' 2025 SCC Onl-ine All l5l2 6 SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult r:rr.rst be caste- specific, intentional, and made in a place within publ .: vieri,. Since the alleged caste- based abuses occurred inside I re accused's house, in the presence of the complainant's wife ancl lrrother-in-law w'ho could not be treated as members of the publi .: the essential ingredient of "public view" was missing. The Court rr so found that the dispute altpeared to arise lrom institutional mant lrcment issues rathcr than caste animosity. Accordingly, it uashed the proceedings rnder Sections 3(l)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) , 1'thc SC/S'| Act against ttre applicant while allowing the triat to p r oceed lor the remaining IP(l offences.

12. ln Kc,.ruppudayar v. State Rnp. by the Depu4, Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy and otherst, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for an offence r r fall withrn Sections 3(l)(r) or 3(l)(s) ol the SC/ST (POA) Arr. i989, rhe alleged act must occur at a place "within public vievz ', meaning a place where rnembers of the public are capable o1' v, itnessing or hearing the a leged abuse. Where the incident occurs within the r 2015 scc online .ic 215 7 four walls of an offence or other private space without public presence, the essential ingredients of "public view" is not satisfied.

13. ln the present case, the complainant, a teacher, has alleged that her fellow teachers and the principal abused her by referring to 1 \ her caste within the principal's office where no members of the public were present at the time. Applying the ratio of Karuppudayar's case (supra), such a place cannot be regarded as being "within public view", and prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted

14. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgrnents cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that continuation ofproceedings in Crime No.36l of 2021, on the file of the Medchal Potice Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 9, is a clear abuse of the process of law and it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitroners.

15. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.36l of 2021 on the file of the Medchal 8 Police Station. Cyberabad, against the petitioners/ac :.rsed Nos. 1 to

9. are hcreby quashed I'endirg r.niscellaneous applications, if an', shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. I,.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASI;ISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The XXll Add tional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medcha . .)yberabad 2. The Statron House Officer, Police station lr/edchal , Cytrt;rabad 3. Two CC to thr> PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for :he State of Telangana, H.,derabad[OUT] 4 One CC to Slll K BUCHT BABU Advocate [OpUC] 5 One CC to SItl tvlohd Shahabuddin Advocate for R-2 ( )pUCl 6. Two CD Copries AG/SA T . -::-:r-ja_-.. : , ;,t] .-'-.-\ . .,.: i^.\.. ,;r.',. ...- .\ lr.jl 2U5 i,; :.i-,; .i_' " t '..'1 ', ,'.' :..'. :' ": '.'.,7 - HIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 ORDER CRLP.No.34li7 o12021 .t li -: il -.: \. '.'. -7t -1, .: ' l_.\,- CRLP IS ALLOWED q