HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 1101 of 2008 Date: 27-04-2010 Between: Ch. Venkateswarlu ……….. Petitioner and State of A.P. and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 1101 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner (A-1) in P.R.C.No.12 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala. Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate, representing Sri C. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a reading of the sworn statement recorded from the complainant itself does not show any specific allegation against the petitioner. It is also his submission that when A-2 to A-7 earlier filed Crl.P.Nos.1058 and 1567 of 2004, this Court allowed those petitions and quashed the prosecution in respect of those Accused through the common order, dated 05-07-2006. I have gone through the record. The contents of the complaint do not reveal that the petitioner had intentionally insulted the wife of the complainant so as to attract the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). Though in the sworn statement the complainant alleges that he was abused in the name of his caste and also referred that when his wife came to the police station, the police also abused her in filthy language, no such averment is made in the complaint. Thus it is clear that the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act are not attracted. A reading of the earlier orders of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.1058 and 1567 of 2004 go to show that those petitions were allowed and the prosecution against all other accused for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act was quashed. The present petition is also on the same footing and the case of the petitioner cannot be separated from the case of the other accused. Moreover a reading of the entire material gives an impression that the complainant was involved in a dacoity case and he is alleged to have caused injury to A-5, Head Constable, while discharging his duties and the police officials seems to have apprehended him while investigating such criminal case and other dacoity cases. Whether the petitioner and other accused were discharging their official duties or not is an important aspect. If at all they were discharging their official duty and as a part of their duty they had apprehended the defacto complainant and taken him to the police station, it appears that sanction under Section 197 (1) of Cr.P.C. has to be obtained to prosecute those accused persons. Anyhow, since the proceedings in respect of the other Accused have been quashed, and since the case of the petitioner is also similar to the case of those Accused, I consider it just and reasonable to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner (A-1) in P.R.C.No.12 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, are hereby quashed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 27-04-2010 YCR