IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10589 of 2009 DATE: 01.11.2011 Between: S.Mohan Reddy …… Petitioner And The Government of A.P rep. by S.H.O of P.S. Talakondapally and Mandal, through Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10589 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is alleged that on 24.11.2009 at about 7.00 A.M when the 2nd respondent was going along with his cow on public road, the accused came on his motor cycle and dashed his cow and that when he questioned the accused after giving his identity particulars, the accused became angry and beat the 2nd respondent with chappal on his head and abused in filthy language touching his Madiga caste and that two persons who are passing on the road intervened. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that it is a concocted complaint and that there was dispute between the petitioner/accused and Balreddy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the said Balreddy employed the 2nd respondent to foist this false case against the petitioner and that this is nothing but abuse of process of law. Except Balreddy and the 2nd respondent belonging to one village, no other connection could be pointed out to show that the 2nd respondent was working on the instigation of Balreddy. Truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint is a question of fact which this Court may not be in a position to investigate in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The offence took place on public road which is a place of public view. Two witnesses were also said to have been present at the time of incident. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to quash F.I.R in this case at its threshold. 2) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Since the petitioner is stated to be working as teacher, the investigating officer is directed not to arrest the petitioner until completion of investigation and filing of final report/charge sheet. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 1, 2011 ksh