THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5289 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1.Maddur Venkat Reddy, S/o.Bal Reddy & 14 others. … Petitioner AND 1.State, by Station House Officer & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5289 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 15/A1 to A15 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) in P.R.C.No.47 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. It is alleged that when one Madiga Nagesh, S/o.Peddinti Narsanna was cutting cattle grass in the land of A1, he objected for the same and abused him as Madiga Bastard and that coming to know about the said incident, the village elders went and questioned A1 and that thereupon, all the persons belonging to Reddy Caste gathered on the next day and attacked the locality of Madiga community indiscriminately. The question whether there was any attack and rioting and causing injuries to the de facto complainant/2nd respondent and others during the said rioting, is a question of fact which this Court cannot go into and decide in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that insofar as offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, the prosecution could not make out prima facie case. As per the allegations, the person who was abused in the name of his Madiga caste is Madiga Nagesh, S/o.Peddinti Narsanna by A1 alone. A2 to A15 did not abuse the said Nagesh and they were not involved in the alleged offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Even the said Madiga Nagesh did not give any report to the police against the incident of A1 abusing him in the name of his caste. No doubt, an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is a cognizable offence, in respect of which any person can pass on information to the police for registration of a case for the said offence. But, unless the victim felt that he was insulted or intimidated, the question of prosecuting a person for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act may not arise. In this case, neither Madiga Nagesh is the complainant nor he was cited as a witness in the charge sheet. Though witness No.11 in the charge sheet is described as Peddinti Nagesh, his father’s name is given as Yenanna, whereas as per FIR, name of the victim is Madiga Nagesh, S/o.P.Narsanna. In those circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution of A1 to A15 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act in a Special Sessions Court, amounts to abuse of process of law. 3. In the result, the criminal petition is partly dismissed insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324/149 I.P.C. are concerned; and the criminal petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in P.R.C.No.47 of 2009 of the lower Court insofar as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned. The lower Court is directed to proceed with the case by converting P.R.C. into CC. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 18.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5289 of 2009 DATED: 18.03.2011 ysk