IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7734 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1. Shaik Abdul Rasheed S/o. Shaik Janimia 2. Smt. Fatima W/o. Shaik Abdul Rasheed …. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 AND 1. Smt. Babitha Rathod D/o. Ravikumar 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7734 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners Shaik Abdul Rasheed, Smt. Fatima – accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.267 of 2009 of Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad District registered for the offences under Sections 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and 506 & 323 IPC. 2. Heard. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 3 (1) (xi) of the Act and 506 & 323 IPC. Petitioner No.2, who is the wife of petitioner No.1, has allegedly entered the cabin of the de facto complainant Babitha Rathod in her office, abused her by caste and also assaulted her. There is no dispute about some incident taking place between the de facto complainant and petitioner No.1. The departmental enquiry conducted by the University concerned also revealed that an incident of quarrel has taken place between them. There are several matters referred in the enquiry report, which need not be referred here. The fact of petitioner No.2, who is not working in the University, going to the official work place of de facto complainant and admittedly some incident taking place, prima facie supports the version of the de facto complainant. As such, it is not a case for granting any relief as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that investigation and consequential steps on the basis of result of the investigation shall go on and petitioner No.1 alone shall not be arrested till filing of the charge sheet, if any. I am not inclined to grant any relief to petitioner No.2. 5. Accordingly, with the above directions, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part in respect of petitioner No.1 alone and as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the petition is dismissed. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 26, 2009. KTL