HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.3248 of 2010 Date: 07-12-2011 Between Komari Venkateswarlu … Petitioner/Accused and Moole Dasharatham … Respondent/De facto Complainant State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.3248 of 2010 Order: This criminal petition is ﬁled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2010 on the ﬁle of Pangal Police Station, Mahabubnagar district. 2. The petitioner is sole accused in the aforesaid crime, which is registered for the oﬀence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. From a perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the 1st respondent-de facto complainant has made a complaint alleging that the petitioner-accused telephoned and abused him. Upon which, the 1st respondent-de facto complainant proceeded to the house of the petitioner-accused on his motorcycle and on the way near Kota, the petitioner was found along with one Kurumaiah and another villager. It is complained that when he questioned the petitioner as to why he abused him in Cell phone, the petitioner got wild and abused him further as ‘MALA LANJAKODUKA IKKADIKI YEDUKU VACHINAVURAA’. 4. In this criminal petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the petitioner has not uttered any words in the telephone and the subsequent incident on the aforesaid date is purposely made only to attract the provisions under the said Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped and partially blind and if the investigation is allowed he will be put to great hardship. 5. I have perused the complaint. It is well established that in a petition ﬁled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C it is not for this Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. A perusal of the complaint, prima facie, do attract the oﬀence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not uttered any such words, it is a matter for investigation by the Police. 6. As it is stated that the complaint was given on 25- 3-2010 and the petitioner is physically handicapped and partially blind, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the criminal petition directing the respondent-Police not to take any steps for arrest of the petitioner unless appropriate ﬁnal investigation is completed and ﬁnal report is ﬁled. It is also made clear that it is open to the respondents to take further steps in accordance with law after ﬁling of the ﬁnal report. 7. Subject to the above, the criminal petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 07th December, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.3248 of 2010 07th December, 2011. (Ak)