1.  This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No. 300 of 2025 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short, 'the trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (for short 'the BNS') and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SCs/STs (POA) Act').

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1. On 28.09.2024, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that accused No.1, belonging to Mysore and working at JS Pride Institute, Hyderabad, was a trainee at the said institute, where she was also a student. She joined the institute in 2022 and subsequently their relationship developed into a love relationship. In January 2023, accused No.1 informed both families about their relationship and visited her house on 29.01.2023, spoke to her family and sought one year time to marry her. Later, he stated that his parents were against their marriage due to caste discrimination, as she belonged to SC, but assured that even if his parents did not agree, he was ready to get registered marriage after one year. Thereafter, they had a physical relationship several times at her house and OYO rooms. From May 2024, accused No.1 started distancing himself from her. In August 2024, accused No.1 informed that his ex-girlfriend i.e., the petitioner, was torturing and threatening him and sending rowdies near his PG and institute and that she had complained against him at Banjara Hills Police Station and sought two months' time to resolve the issue. On 05.09.2024, accused No.1 came to her house, explained the matter to her parents and sought one week time to resolve the issue with the said girl and that he would take legal action against her and thereafter proceed with registration of marriage with her. After returning to Mysore, he started avoiding/refusing her calls and informed her father that he was taking legal action against his ex- girlfriend. Believing his assurance, they waited for 15 days, but subsequently accused No.1 blocked all the numbers, including those of her parents. On 21.09.2024, she attempted to contact the petitioner, who is the ex-girlfriend of accused No.1, as all the numbers of accused No.1 and his parents were switched off, she stated that she was worried that they might have harmed themselves or consumed poison. Thereafter, she and the petitioner had a conversation over phone. On 22.09.2024 at about 1:27 a.m., the petitioner allegedly spoke in vulgar language about her and her father, insulted them and made derogatory remarks concerning their SC caste, including referring to her as "labour". She further stated that the petitioner made insulting statements concerning persons belonging to the SC caste and their marriages and, therefore, requested to take action as per law against accused No.1 and the petitioner. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.966 of 2024 was registered and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet on 29.03.2025 and the learned trial Court took cognizance for the above mentioned offences and issued summons to the petitioner and accused No.1.

3. Heard Mr. Y. Koteswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yeddu Divakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

               4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of any offences as alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has not abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. Respondent No.2 alleged in the complaint that the petitioner called her over the phone and started speaking in vulgar language about her and her father in the name of caste. The petitioner had never met respondent No.2, had never seen her, and had neither abused her nor her father in the name of their caste. Even according to the complaint, the alleged words were not used within public view. Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act are not attracted.

               4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2, merely because she is a member of Scheduled Caste, has made omnibus allegations against the petitioner, implicating her in the above said case as accused No.2 with an intention to harass her in one way or other. The petitioner never insulted or uttered any abusive words against respondent No.2 and the ingredients of the offence under Section 79 of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner, as the petitioner being a woman.

               4.3. He further submitted that there are no allegations, much less specific allegations, levelled against the petitioner that she caused any injury or caused damage to the reputation of respondent No.2. Hence, the ingredients of the offence under Section 351(2) of the BNS are also not attracted. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in S.C.No.300 of 2025 against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

               4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

               1. Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another ((2025) 2 SCC 604);

               2. G.P. Hemakoti Reddy, Ananthapur Dist v. Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad (2022 (2) ALT (Crl.) 408); and

               3. Pasupuleti Chinachennaiah v. State of A.P. rep. by S.H.O., Nallapdu P.S., Guntur District rep. through the Public Prosecutor, State of A.P., High Court of A.P. and another (2026 (2) ALT (Crl.) 474 (S.B.));

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

               5.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioner abused respondent No.2 and her father over the phone in the name of their caste. The mere fact that the abusive words were not used against respondent No.2 and her father in public view is not a ground for seeking quashing of the proceedings, especially when the present crime has been registered for the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act and the concept of public view is not required. Respondent No.2, in her statement, has specifically stated the abusive words used by the petitioner against her and her father in the name of their caste.

               5.2. The allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the statement of respondent No.2 clearly shows that the petitioner is having knowledge that respondent No.2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and she intentionally insulted and used abusive words against her and her father in the name of their caste. The said allegations attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act.

               5.3. He further submitted that Sections 79 and 351(2) of the BNS are also mentioned in the Schedule appended to Section 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act. He further submitted that the Investigating Agency, during the course of investigation, collected the call data and F.S.L. report and enclosed the same along with the charge sheet. The allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the final report attract the ingredients of the offences levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

6. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:

               6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the very same submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and further submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet. Respondent No.2, in her statement, specifically mentioned the abusive words which were used by the petitioner in the name of her caste. The allegations levelled in the complaint and the charge sheet disclose cognizable offences and the grounds raised by the petitioner are triable issues and the same have to be decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial.

Analysis:

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 stated in the complaint that she and accused No.1 are known to each other as a student and trainee at JS Institute, Hyderabad, and subsequently their relationship developed into love and accused No.1 promised her to marry her and under the guise of the said promise, he developed physical relationship with respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 and her family members insisted to marry respondent No.2, accused No.1 avoided her. Respondent No.2 specifically alleged that the petitioner, who is the ex-girl friend of accused No.1, in telephonic conversation with respondent No.2 on 22.09.2024, the petitioner used abusive language against her and her father in the name of their caste stating that "SC community people are labours and people belongs to SC community will just search to many a boy who is good in all aspects". There are also other allegations against the petitioner.

8. It is relevant to mention that, Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs/STs Act, envisages that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belong to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code for such offences and also be liable to fine. In the case on hand, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint that the petitioner, having knowledge that respondent No.2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, abused respondent No.2 over the phone using abusive language in the name of her caste. The allegations levelled in the complaint and the charge sheet prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Section 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, and the offences under Sections 79 and 351(2) of the BNS were also mentioned in the Schedule appended to Section 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 79 and 351(2) of the BNS were also attracted.

9. The record discloses that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 under Section 180 of the BNSS/Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In the said statement, she specifically mentioned the words allegedly used by the petitioner. There are also specific allegations in the complaint and charge sheet that the petitioner was aware that respondent No.2 belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and insulted and used abusive words against respondent No.2 and her father in the name of their caste with an intention to cause injury and also damage her reputation.

10. In Naresh Aneja Alias Naresh Kumar Aneja (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for an offence of criminal intimidation to be prima facie established, the intention to cause alarm must be clearly visible and established by evidence on record. The threat must be intended to cause the complainant to do or omit to do any act. Mere expression of words, without intention to cause alarm, is not sufficient to attract the offence. The threat must be communicated by the accused with the intention of influencing the mind of the victim; mere statement without such intention would not attract the offence.

11. In Pasupuleti Chinchennaiah (supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi held that to attract Section 509 IPC, there must be material showing an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. The ultimate test is whether the alleged act is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Mere use of "filthy language", in isolation and without contextual material indicating a deliberate intent to insult modesty, does not constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC.

12. In G.P.Hemakoti Reddy (supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, held that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not established merely because the informant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; there must be an intention to humiliate the victim for the reason of his/her caste. Mere conversation over phone, in the absence of any averment that it was overheard by the public, does not constitute the offence. Where the essential ingredients of the Act are absent, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law.

13. The above said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet that the petitioner abused respondent No.2 and her father over phone in vulgar language and respondent No.2 in her statement also specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner and also the abusive words used by the petitioner. The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of other witnesses i.e., LWs.2 to 20 and after collecting the call data and FSL report filed charge sheet. The allegations in the complaint and charge sheet disclose cognizable offences and the grounds raised by the petitioner have to be decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial.

14. It is relevant to mention that in State of Andhra Pradesh v. B.Reddeppa Reddy and others (2026 SC OnLine SC 501), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, at the stage of considering a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court should not conduct a mini-trial, assess the sufficiency or reliability of evidence, or determine disputed questions of fact; where the allegations disclose triable issues, the same are required to be adjudicated on evidence at trial.

15. In State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative and the power must be exercised sparingly.

16. It is also relevant to mention that in Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors ((2019) 14 SCC 350), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on hand is not the rarest of rare case to exercise powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.300 of 2025 against the petitioner.

17. It has already been stated 'supra' that there are specific allegati0ons levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet that the petitioner was aware that respondent No.2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and intentionally used abusive words in the name of caste and insulted her. The allegations levelled in the complaint and the charge sheet discloses the commission of cognizable offences. The said allegations prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences under Sections 351(2) and 79 of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint, charge sheet, the statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, the statements of the other witnesses and the material evidence enclosed along with the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer, are true or not, the same will be revealed after a full-fledged trial before the trial Court.

18. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.300 of 2025 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, against the petitioner.

19. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner, being a woman and software employee, as well as the matter before the learned trial Court has not ripened for trial, the presence of the petitioner in S.C.No.300 of 2025 is dispensed with, unless her presence is specifically required subject to the condition that the petitioner shall be represented through her counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for her appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are confined to the purpose of deciding this case only.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.