THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2240 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners herein i.e., Mara Suresh, Chindam Beerappa, Morri Srisailam, Ravula Lingam and Konduri Lingaiah are Accused Nos.3 to 7 respectively in Crime No.120 of 2010 registered by Manchal Police Station, Cyberabad. The said crime was registered on 06.09.2010 on the basis of a report given by the 2nd respondent herein. After investigation, the police filed the charge sheet on 30.09.2010. Subsequent thereto, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, passed docket order on 23.10.2010, wherein it was directed to issue N.B.Ws. against A3 to A7. Questioning the said docket order, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below ought not to have issued Non-Bailable Warrants against the petitioners/A3 to A7 for the reason that the offences for which the police report is filed against the petitioners are bailable and even according to the charge sheet, the petitioners have not committed any offence punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. 4. At paragraph 6 of the charge sheet, it is stated as under: “The investigation done has well established that the complainant and the accused are the residents of the same village i.e. Arutla of Manchal mandal and they are known to each other. The complainant belongs to Mala caste (SC) and the A-1 and A-2 belongs to kurma caste (BC). The complainant is working as home guard (HG.No-1007) in Cyberabad Commissionerate. On 05.09.2010 at about 9.30 pm, the complainant received a phone call from one of his friends by name Sreekanth Reddy (lw-2) on which the complainant and the LW-5 went to the SC-hostel where they found the LW-2 and the A-1 are abusing each other in filthy language. When the LW-5 intervened to pacify the issue, the A-1 abused him. Then the complainant questioned the actions of the A-1 upon which the A-1 caught hold of his collar and abused him also. Then complainant beat the A-1 with hands. Meanwhile the surrounding area people have gathered there and dispersed all of them. On the same day at 1130 pm, while the LW-1 was in the house of the LW-5, the A-1 to A-7 and the other alleged accused Chindam Jangaiah, Vaspari Raju, Kore Jangaiah, Bandari Srisailam, Ale Parvathalu and others have come to the house of LW-5 and picked up argument with them and the A-1 and A-2 abused the complainant as “Mala Lanjakodaka” and insulted in the public vicinity. On hearing the noise the LWs-2 to 4 and 6 to 8 and others gathered at the scene and dispersed the above persons. On 06.09.2010 at about 099 hrs, the LW-2 has called the LW-1 to the SC hostel to talk to the accused party to sort out the issue, on which the LW-1, LW-3 and LW-4 have gone to near the SC hostel on the motorcycle of LW-3. When they reached the place where the accused have gathered, the A-1 and A-2 abused the LW-1 on caste basis as Mala lanjakodaka and insulted him in public vicinity and beat him. The other accused i.e. A-3 Mara Suresh s/o Beerappa A-4 Chindam Beerappa s/o Buchaiah A-5 Morri Srisailam s/o. Narsimha A-6 Ravula Lingam s/o chandraiah A-7 Konduri Lingaiah, s/o. Beerappa have abused the LW-1 in filthy language and beat him with hands but they did not abuse the complainant on his caste name and the same is witnessed by the LWs 9 and 10. Thus the accused A-1 and A-2 have committed an offence punishable U/s 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Sec. 323 IPC. The other accused i.e. A-3 Mara Suresh s/o. Beerappa A-4 Chindam Beerappa S/o Buchaiah A-5 Morri Srisailam s/o Narsimha A-6 Ravula Lingam s/o Chandraiah A-7 Konduri Lingaiah, s/o. Beerappa are liable for punishment u/s 323, 504 R/w 34 IPC. As there is nothing to proceed against A3 to A7 under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, they are deleted from the above charge. The A3 to A7 are liable for punishment only U/s 323, 504 R/w 34 IPC.” 5. A reading of the aforesaid contents of the charge sheet would clearly show that only A1 and A2 are stated to have committed the offence punishment under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The contents of the charge sheet further clarifies that since there was nothing to proceed against the petitioners/A3 to A7 under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, A3 to A7 are liable for punishment only under Sections 323 and 504 read with 34 of IPC. But, the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam, passed the impugned docket order dated 23.10.2010 in Crime No.120 of 2010, which reads as under: “Perused police report, statements of witnesses and F.I.R. A prima facie accusation under Section 3(1) (x) of S.Cs., S.Ts. (POA) Act and under Section 323 and 504 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against A1 to A7. The offences exclusively triable by Hon’ble Spl. Court under S.Cs., and S.Ts., (POA) Act and accused herein to be charged jointly under Section 223 Cr.P.C. Hence, register a case as P.R.C. Issue N.B.Ws against A3 to A7. Call on 08.11.2010.” 6. By the impugned docket order dated 23.10.2010, the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners/A3 to A7, though there were no charges which are non-bailable against the petitioners. Thus, I am in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when once there is no charge of non-bailable offence against the petitioners/A3 to A7, simply because all the accused are to be tried jointly, the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the impugned docket order dated 23.10.2010 passed in Crime No.120 of 2010 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, is hereby set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 29.01.2011 Note: Issue CC in two days B/o v v