HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5365 of 2011 Dated 12.7.2011 Between: Mudugu Sanjeeva Reddy. …Petitioner. And: The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5365 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused in Cr.No.61 of 2011 of Chirala II Town Police Station and he filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. in the said crime. 3. Initially, the said case was registered under Section 420 I.P.C. The Station House Officer of Chirala II Town Police Station, has sent the petitioner for judicial custody before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 29.5.2011 remanded the petitioner to judicial custody for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. In the said remand order he also mentioned about the offences under Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short, ‘the Act’). 4. Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Act reads as follows: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities:--(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (i) …….. (xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed.” 5. The F.I.R. allegations which are given by the victim/ prosecutrix would show that the petitioner developed an affair with her and subsequently, enjoyed her on a promise of marriage and refused to marry her, but married another girl. These are the allegations made in the F.I.R. and of course, nothing is stated by the victim/prosecutrix that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and the petitioner sexually enjoyed her by dominating her will knowing that she belongs to that caste or tribe. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that despite the above contents of the F.I.R. which do not show the offence under the Act, the learned Magistrate went wrong in mentioning the said offences in his remand order. 7. May be, but this is not the stage to decide about the correctness of the Magistrate’s order or the applicability or non- applicability of the Act to the case. The matter has to be investigated and the investing agency has to first find out whether the offence under the Act is attracted to the case or not and thereafter, the closure report or charge sheet is to be filed. Hence, it is not open for this court now to make any enquiry into that aspect now. Further the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie show cheating of a woman. This is a minus point for the petitioner. It shall always be open for the petitioner to pursue his remedy including approaching this court as and when the charge sheet is filed. The petitioner is now reported to be in bail and this is recorded. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ Justice N.RAVI SHANKAR Dated 12.7.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5365 of 2011 Dated 12.7.2011