HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.10921 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in cr.No.122 of 2010 of Gangadhara PS. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the 2nd respondent. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, police registered FIR No.122 of 2010 against the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 for the offences under sections 506 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC, ST & (POA) Act, 1989. According to the complainant, she belongs to scheduled caste ‘mala’ community and that she was granted assignment patta by the government in respect of 20 cents of land in Sy.No.91/1 and the rest of the other land in the said survey number was taken on lease by Om Sai Granites and Srinivasa Granites, represented by P.Bhaskar Rao and P.Sireesha for extraction of granite and that the said lessees Bhaskar Rao and Sireesha are residing in Malaysia and therefore, they gave it on sub-lease to the first petitioner-A.1. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 23.10.2010 at about 1.30 p.m., the complainant requested the first petitioner-A.1 not to conduct any quarry operations in her land and thereupon, the first petitioner-A.1 abused her in the name of her caste and other accused-A.2 to A.4 came upon her and attempted to beat her and the same was witnessed by K.Kumaraiah, M.Lachaiah and N.Venugopal, who were all working in the adjacent quarry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier ac complaint was given on 23.10.2010 by Banuka Srinivas against the 2nd respondent herein alleging the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 506 IPC and the same was registered as Cr.No.121 of 2010 at 4 p.m. and subsequently, by way of counter- blast, the present complaint was lodged at 5 p.m. 5. It can be seen from the complaint in Cr.No.121 of 2010, that the incident referred to therein took place on 22.10.2010 at about 1 p.m. and the complainant therein was one Banuka Srinivas. No complaint was given pertaining to the said incident immediately either on the same day i.e., 22.10.2010 or till 4 p.m. on 23.10.2010. The alleged incident in the present complaint i.e., Cr.No.122 of 2010 is said to have taken place at about 1.30 p.m. on 23.10.2010 and thereafter, the complaint in FIR No.121 of 2010 was registered at 4 p.m. and the present complaint by the 2nd respondent was registered at 5 p.m. The two incidents alleged in the two complaints are therefore, distinct and separate and there is no prima-facie material to infer that the present complaint is a counter-blast to the earlier complaint in Cr.No.121 of 2010. 6. Be that as it may, in the complaint, 2nd respondent has specifically alleged that she belongs to scheduled caste ‘mala’ community and the petitioner-A.1 abused her in the name of her caste and threatened to kill her if she came to the land and thereby insulted her in public place to the public view and A.2 to A.4 have witnessed the said incident. The truth or otherwise of the said allegation is a matter to be ascertained after due investigation. However, in view of the specific allegation contained in the complaint prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings in Cr.No.122 of 2010 of Gangadhara PS, as the matter requires thorough investigation. The petitioners-A.1 to A.4 may not be arrested till the completion of the investigation. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 03.11.2011 bss