THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5737 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition is filed for quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No.203 of 2011 of Chikkadapally Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Act). The petitioner is stated to be a practicing advocate. The F.I.R. allegations are on the morning of 18-05-2011 both the alleged victims went to the office of the petitioner for discussing some legal matter and in that discussion the petitioner suddenly abused both the victims/ de facto complainants in the name of their caste and insulted them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously pointed out that the de facto complainants did not mention about their caste or stated that they belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and therefore the F.I.R. ought not to have been registered for the offences under the Act. 4. It may be noted that in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra[1] the Supreme Court laid down that even though the caste of the accused is not specifically mentioned in the FIR indicating that he does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe still F.I.R. can be registered and police can investigate the case and find out whether or not the accused belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and complete the investigation. 5. By way of corollary the same principle can be applied in the case of victims also. Police can investigate about that aspect in the course of investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the aforesaid Supreme Court decision applies only where the caste of the accused is not mentioned but not where the caste of the victim is not mentioned. I am unable to agree with this contention for the principle laid down in the above decision equally applies both to the victim and to the accused. Thus, in my opinion there are no grounds to quash the F.I.R. and that relief is rejected. 6. The petitioner is stated to be a practicing Advocate and much argument was advanced about the improbabilities in the F.I.R. and it is also stated that the petitioner is not residing in the place which is mentioned in the F.I.R. and that he is living at some other place. It is seen that having regard to the nature of offence, custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 7. In these circumstances, the concerned police can go ahead with investigation but they shall take a decision regarding the arrest of the petitioner after completion of the investigation. 8. The petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J July 14, 2011 Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5737 of 2011 July 14, 2011 Pn [1] (2009) 3 SCC 789