THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11958 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner preferred this criminal petition invoking the provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the registration of Crime No.394 of 2010 of Patancheruvu Police Station, Medak District, whereby he is arrayed as accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Heard. The complainant is not a non-tribal or not belonging to Scheduled Caste. He preferred the complaint basing on which a case was registered under the above said sections. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the complaint is not maintainable for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC, ST (POA) Act when the complainant is not a person belonging to either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The reading of the complaint, which reads as follows: “I submit that the said Narasa Raju became violent and pick up a stick and beaten me indiscriminately and when my supervisor tried to stop him from beating, the said Narasa Raju and P. Sudha Gajapathi Raju have scolded him calling him with his caste saying “Madiga Munda Kodaka Neekemi ra Pani” and beaten him also and left the place in their case. I was surprised with the action of the said Narasa Raju and P.Sudha Gajapathi Raju and since there is bleeding injury on my right shoulder, I could not stop them while they are leaving the place.” It clearly indicates that the complainant lodged a complaint as far as attack over him and also threatening meted out by him in the hands of the accused herein and also stated that the petitioner scolded the other person who was working under him by mentioning the caste name of the concerned person. On the said complaint, a case has been registered. This Court is of the view that when two offences committed, there is no need of two complaints, that means one complaint by the Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe person and the other complaint by an individual. When the individual who suffered in the hands of the petitioner herein also stated the entire occurrence, it necessitated the Investigating Officer to register the said crime. Learned counsel further submits that the aggrieved person has not preferred any complaint. But the learned Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court regarding the writ petition filed by the person, who is actually an aggrieved person in the eye of law as far as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned and the prayer of the concerned person before the concerned court is also to transfer the case for better investigation. Hence, this Court is of the view that the present complaint cannot be quashed on the basis of the said contention. As far as the next contention that it is a motivated complaint is concerned, this Court is of the view that it is a matter to be investigated. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner is suffering with ailments and she was not present at the scene of occurrence and she was 600 kilometers away from the place of occurrence on that particular date. However, it is also a matter, which has to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, whether the petitioner was present in the place of occurrence or not. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that this is not a stage to interfere with the investigation. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this Criminal Petition, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 17th November 2011 Rns