THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7708 of 2009 DATED:22.09.2009 Between: Natukula Sakunthala .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, through The Station House Officer, Markapur Town Police Station, Prakasham District, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. The First Information Report in Cr.No.194 of 2009 was registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and her husband alleging that on issuance of a passport by the Sub Inspector of Police to the second respondent herein for ascertaining the whereabouts of the husband of the petitioner and others, the second respondent found the petitioner and her husband to be going on a motor cycle and stopped them and informed them that the Sub Inspector of Police sent him for locating the husband of the petitioner, on which, the husband of the petitioner abused the second respondent in the name of his caste. The second respondent further appears to have alleged that he understood the petitioner to have abused him in Hindi and that the petitioner also pushed him back on which he fell down. The petitioner contends that she herself belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and in corroboration of her claim; she filed a copy of the caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate. The certificate further mentions that relevant documents were produced before the said Executive Magistrate and it was only on the strength of the documentary evidence that the Executive Magistrate had issued the caste certificate on being satisfied about such evidence. The caste certificate so produced by the petitioner herein prima facie corroborates the claim that she herself being a Scheduled Tribe woman cannot be accused of an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the question whether she enjoys the status of a Scheduled Tribes person in the State of Andhra Pradesh also. Her claims about the absence of any criminal liability under the said special statute, even if the allegations of the second respondent are prima facie acceptable, are still left to be appropriately considered in any further proceedings arising out of the First Information Report in question, as the said Cr.No.194 of 2009 is also about an alleged offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. If the second respondent was acting in pursuance of the instructions of his superior and was issued a passport by the Sub Inspector of Police for the purpose of locating the petitioner’s husband, he is prima facie considered to be on duty discharging his official functions at the relevant time and if the suspected abuses in Hindi and the pushing of the second respondent back making him fall down were committed by the petitioner, it cannot be said that even prima facie, there is no scope for attributing any criminal liability in this regard. That being a disputed question of fact has to be enquired into and determined either by the statutory investigating agency or the trial Court, on merits, on the evidence to be placed before them, but not this Court in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the inherent jurisdiction is available only in the rarest of rare cases where the prosecution is untenable on its face, but not in cases where disputed questions of fact need to be gone into and determined. The Criminal Petition cannot be entertained in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed within the scope of Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Petition has to therefore fail, though the committal of an offence under the special statute is rendered ex facie doubtful by the caste certificate produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 22nd September 2009 KH