THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.10167 of 2010 Date:21-12-2010 Between: R.Giridhar …Petitioner And The State of A.P. and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.10167 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/2nd accused to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 227 of 2008 of Police Station, Kadapa taluq which is pending on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. Ch.Manoranjitha, the de facto complainant is the wife of Gopisetti Surendra Babu. She belongs to ‘mala’ community which is a scheduled caste; whereas, Gopisetti Surendra Babu belongs to ‘balija’ community which is non- scheduled caste and non- scheduled tribe. Their marriage was love marriage and they were blessed with two children. Gopisetti Surendra Babu fell ill seriously and died on 12.05.2008. It is the version of the de facto complainant that in order to drive her and her children from the family of Gopisetti Surendra Babu without claiming any right or interest in the property, the petitioner and other accused did not allow her son to cremate the deadbody of her husband and only with the aid of police, they could cremate the deadbody and subsequently the accused abused her in filthy language mainly on the ground that she is a woman belonging to scheduled caste. The petitioner and the remaining accused are close relatives of the deceased. Against them, the de facto complainant/2nd respondent filed a complaint-petition in the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa and the same was forwarded to the Police Station, Kadapa Taluk and was investigated into by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, Kadapa. Ultimately, final report was filed stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner and other accused in the complaint-petition are false. After the case was referred, the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition and thereafter the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent and the statements of her witnesses and while the matter was pending, the present criminal petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that all the allegations mentioned in the complaint-petition are false and the police after thorough investigation filed a final report referring the case as false, that the 2nd respondent only with a view to harass the petitioner and others, implicated them in an offence punishable under the provisions of Protection of Atrocities Act. In fact, no such incident did take place and therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No.227 of 2008 of Police Station, Kadapa Taluq are liable to be quashed. I have perused the contents of the complaint-petition, statements of the 2nd respondent and her witnesses recorded by the learned Magistrate which prima facie disclose commission of offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) (XV) of A.P. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 506 of IPC. While hearing a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, I am not supposed to make a roving enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the complaint-petition and also the statements of the witnesses. If the allegations ex facie appear to be false or the allegations do not attract the offence under the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act, the proceedings can be quashed. I think that it is not proper to quash the proceedings which are pending consideration for commitment to the Special Court by examining the merits or correctness of the allegations leveled in the complaint-petition. In view of the above, the criminal petition is dismissed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J Date:21.12.2010 ccm THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.10167 of 2010 Date:21.12.2010