THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4925 OF 2009 Dated 29-10-2011 Between: V.V.Lakshmi Narayana and another. ..Petitioners. And: The State of A.P., represented by its Public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4925 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.201 of 2009 of Chilakaluripet Town Police station, Guntur District, registered for the offence under Section 353 read with 34 I.P.C. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: Petitioners 1 and 2 herein are A.1 and A.2 respectively in the above crime. The second respondent herein who is working as Assistant Engineer, O&M Section No.1, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District, lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others alleging that they scolded him in the name of his caste and also beat him and obstructed him while discharging his official duties. In this connection, the police registered a case in Cr.No.201 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 353 read with 34 I.P.C. According to the petitioners, this case is a counter blast case to Crime No.202 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short, ‘the Act’) and 506 I.P.C. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner herein is a practicing advocate at Hyderabad and that the 2nd petitioner is doing agriculture and that they lodged a complaint against the 2nd respondent who is complainant herein and in that connection, police registered a case in Cr.No.202 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 506 I.P.C. It is also his submission that there was a proposal for construction of oil mill in which the local M.L.A. by name Gotipati Ravi Kumar is one of the directors and that the said mill was proposed to be constructed near drinking water storage tank, Public Health Centre, Zilla Parishad High School, Panchayat office, temple, Hospital and Backward Classes, Schedule Tribes colonies and if the said mill is constructed, it will demolish the agricultural irrigation channels and that the agricultural lands about Ac.2.80 cents would become uncultivable and therefore, the Grampanchayat issued a notice to demolish the said unauthorized construction. It is also their further submission that they represented the matter to the collector and that the Grampanchayat filed a W.P.No.15591 of 2008 as public interest litigation and a private complaint was lodged before the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chilakaluripet and another complaint before Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide Complaint No.3 of 2009 dated 2-1-2009 against one M/s. Iddapalapadu Cotton Mills Private Limited and 23 others including one Gottipati Ravi Kumar M.L.A. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent herein was directed by the concerned Executive Engineer to conduct a general body meeting of the Gramapanchayat and that the 2nd respondent who has to discharge the official duty has failed to discharge his duty and disobeyed the orders of the Executive Engineer and that when the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent and requested to call the meeting, he got annoyed and caught hold of the neck of the 1st petitioner and necked him out and threatened them. In the above circumstances, the 1st petitioner approached the police and lodged a complaint against the 2nd respondent and that the police registered the same as a case in Crime No.202 of 2009 and as a counter-blast, the 2nd respondent got the false case registered by the police against the petitioner under the influence of local M.L.A. It is also his further submission that the police during the course of investigation, came to the conclusion that the contents of the said report are false. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision reported in PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT, C.P. AND BERAR v. NONELAL GOKUL PRASAD ([1]). He also relied on an another decision reported in DHANNALAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE THROUGH POLICE, BHANPURA- NON-APPLICANT ([2]). Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings . The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the proceedings pending against the petitioners are liable to be quashed or not?. The public servants have to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is the duty of the 2nd respondent to conduct the meeting of the association and the he ought to have conducted the general body meeting as per the directions of the Executive Engineer or the District Collector in discharging his duties. It is a settled law that truth or otherwise of allegations and counter allegations and the disputed facts cannot be ascertained in quash proceedings. The petitioner may raise all the pleas available to them before the trial court. However, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 29-10-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4925 OF 2009 Dated 29-10-2011 [1] AIR (33) 1946 NAGPUR 261 [2] AIR (38) 1951 MADHYA BHARAT 42