HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11021 of 2010 Date : 16.11.2011 Between : Dr.V.S.Prasanna Kumar Reddy. …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.11021 of 2010 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings in Crime No.238 of 2010 on the file of P.S. Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. The petitioner is Joint Commissioner (General), working in the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. The 2nd respondent/ complainant is an Assistant Executive Engineer (Bio Medical) working in the same organization in the same station. The Crime in Crime No.238 of 2010 is registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the complaint addressed by the 2nd respondent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. In the aforesaid complaint, it is alleged by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has prepared false information in File No.1009/E2/2000 of the A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, describing his qualification as correspondence course instead of part time degree course, and thus, he caused doubts in the minds of higher-ups for his continuation on deputation basis in the head office. It is also alleged that the petitioner is intentionally delaying in furnishing the information sought by the Government for accommodating him in the head office, and when he made inquiries, the petitioner used abusive words and insulted him infront of other officers of the A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad on several occasions. On the aforesaid complaint, a case is registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In this quash petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that taking the contents of complaint as it is, they do not attract any of the offences alleged against the petitioner. It is submitted that when the petitioner sent his remarks against the request of the 2nd respondent to continue his deputation in the head office, such false complaint is filed. It is stated that when the petitioner has made such remarks in discharge of his official duties as per the record on the representation made by the 2nd respondent/complainant to post him in the regular vacancy, and when the petitioner is only a forwarding authority, there is no need for him to give false information. It is submitted that even taking the contents of the complaint as it is, it will not attract the ingredients of either Section 3(1)(ix) or 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent that as a crime is registered on the complaint made by the 2nd respondent with specific allegations, it is a matter for investigation by the Police. In this case, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions under Sections 3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which read as under : 3 (1)(ix) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; 3 (1)(x) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable. I have also closely perused the contents of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Taking the complaint as it is, this Court is of the view that it will not attract any of the provisions under Sections 3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(x) of the Act. It is to be noticed that the 2nd respondent/complainant is subordinate to the petitioner and he is continuing on deputation at head office at Hyderabad. When his continuation is sought, remarks were sent by the petitioner based on the record. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the description of qualification mentioned in the records is to the injury or annoyance of the 2nd respondent, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste. In the absence of the allegation of intentionally insulting the 2nd respondent in public place, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It appears that the said complaint is filed only because the petitioner has not recommended the case of 2nd respondent for continuation on deputation in the office of the Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is evidently a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed and the crime registered against the petitioner in Crime No.238 of 2010 on the file of P.S.Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, is hereby quashed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th November 2011 ajr