THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1790 of 2010 Date: 16.11.2011 Between: Palghat Narayan Vasantha Prasad. ..... Petitioner. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1790 of 2010 ORDER: Dr. Bandi Shyam Prasad was said to be a leading Physician at Pithapuram. He would appear to have thrived well and possessed several immovable properties. Adarsh Vidyalaya, Salipeta, Pithapuram is said to be a Primary Educational Institute with considerable repute at Pithapuram. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the 2nd wife of late Dr.Bandi Shyam Prasad and that she has been the head of Adarsh Vidyalaya. 2 . The 2nd respondent who is the defacto-complainant is the son of late Bandi Shyam Prasad through his first wife. Shyam Prasad and the 2nd respondent are members of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner is said to be not a member of the scheduled caste. She belonged to a forward community. 3. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that on 04-02-2010, the petitioner attacked the 2nd respondent and also abused the 2nd respondent with reference to his community when the 2nd respondent intercepted the petitioner from taking away the cash collection of the school. According to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has been running the school. 4. Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been running the school and that when the 2nd respondent started interfering with the properties under the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed DVC.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram on 01-12-2009 and obtained interim orders against the 2nd respondent herein. Dr. Shyam Prasad reportedly died on 17-01-2007, after which disputes cropped up between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It is the further case of the petitioner that on account of the case in DVC.No.4 of 2009 and the interim orders therein, the 2nd respondent bore grudge and filed the complaint against the petitioner with an intention to retaliate. He placed reliance upon GORIGE PENTAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that when the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1985 (‘the Act’, for short) are not made out, it would be unjust to compel the accused to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial. 5 . The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint did not even state that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste and that the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act prima facie is not made out. Where admittedly it is the case of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent that the petitioner is a Brahmin by community, the question of the 2nd respondent specifically mentioning that his step mother did not belong to Scheduled Caste does not arise. The compliant prima facie established the ingredients under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 6 . It was also contended by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner attacked the 2nd respondent when the 2nd respondent restrained the petitioner from taking away the cash collections. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the age of the petitioner. The petitioner is a 60 years old lady. The 2nd respondent is aged about 30 years old. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the age and sex of the petitioner, the contention of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner attacked the 2nd respondent and caused injuries leading to the offence under Section 323 IPC prima facie cannot be accepted. I am afraid that it is a case of evidence and a disputed question of fact and that it is for the trial Court to decide the truth about the allegations made by the 2nd respondent. Prima facie, the ingredients for the offence under Section 323 IPC are made out from the complaint. I, therefore, am constrained to conclude that the petitioner cannot seek for the quashment of the First Information Report. 7 . At the same time, taking the age of the petitioner into consideration, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceeding with the case should not be a licence to police to arrest the petitioner forthwith. I consider that the police should act when circumspection before they seek to arrest the petitioner, if they wish to arrest the petitioner at all. 8. The main relief that the petitioner seek for the quahment of the First Information Report is found to be unsustainable and it is accordingly dismissed. 9. The 1st respondent however is directed that the arrest of the petitioner shall not be resorted to except in case of necessity as envisaged by the recent amendment of Cr.P.C under Section 167 Cr.P.C. The police shall follow the amended 167 Cr.P.C scrupulously in the event the police intends to arrest the petitioner. In the event the amended 167 Cr.P.C does not apply to the present case, the Police may proceed with the investigation without resorting to the arrest of the petitioner. 10. This Criminal Petition is disposed of accordingly. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:16.11.2011 mrb