HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5013 of 2008 Date: July 29, 2010 Between: Vajja Babu Rao. … Petitioner/ Accused And 1. Bonela Rama and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALAGOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5013 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) in P.R.C. No.25 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palasa. 2. When the police filed final report referring the case as false, the first respondent-de facto complainant filed protest petition in the lower court and during inquiry sworn statements of himself and other witnesses were recorded by the lower court. Thereupon, the lower court took the case on file against the accused for the offence under Section 3 (i)(x) of the Act and issued non-bailable warrant against him. 3. It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Magistrate should have applied mind before taking cognizance of the case for the above offence, and should have passed a reasoned order as to how final report of the police is not liable to be accepted. Even before the Investigating Officer, some of the witnesses did not support the first respondent’s contention and some of the witnesses supported the first respondent’s version. Therefore, it is not a case where no witnesses supported the complainant during investigation and the first respondent/complainant has implanted witnesses during inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in these circumstances though the Magistrate did not give explicit reasons for taking the case on file, it is evident that the Magistrate has exercised mind in taking cognizance of the offence. 4. Placing reliance on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal[1] of the Supreme Court it is contended that the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of issuing non-bailable warrant against the accused straightaway. The Supreme Court observed that the power to issue warrant for arrest has to be exercised judiciously, as it is a discretionary power and that esteem care and caution should be taken in doing so. The Supreme Court further held that in all cases except in heinous crimes or when it is feared that the accused is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade process of law, in the initial stage summons has to be issued and not non-bailable warrant. Thus, though there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings in the lower court, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for granting relief to the petitioner in so far as non-bailable warrant is concerned. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palasa, within four weeks from today in P.R.C. No.25 of 2008, in which event he shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) together with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the same Magistrate. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: July 29, 2010. BSB [1] (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 259