IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS the 20th day of April, 2011 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3454 of 2011 Between: Kuruva Raghavendra Reddy ..Petitioner and The State of AP and another Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3454 of 2011 Order: The petitioner is the accused in Cr.No.33 of 2011 of P.S., Gonegandla, Kurnool District. He filed this petition to quash the proceedings in the said case. It is still at FIR stage. 2. The offences alleged are those punishable under sections 324 and 355 IPC read with S. 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). The allegations in the report of the de facto complainant, which is registered as FIR, would show that the petitioner herein allegedly committed the offences alleged by the de facto complainant. 3. The incident is said to have occurred before one M. Rambabu an official in the M.P.D.O’s Office. This Rambabu is said to be the Extension Officer (Rural Development). The learned counsel for the petitioner however invited my attention to the report given by the said Rambabu and that report reads that though an untoward incident occurred in his presence, the petitioner has not abused the victim in the name of his caste. 4. Basing on the above statement/report of Rambabu, the petitioner’s counsel contends that the FIR should be quashed. This is a matter for evidence and correct conclusion can be reached by the Investigating Officer in the first instance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asamathunnisa V. The State [1]. The principle laid down in the said decision is that an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act would be complete or can be said to have occurred only when the abuses are made in the public view. Here the question whether the abuses are made in the public view or not has to be decided on the material to be gathered in the course of investigation and it can be done in the first instance only by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly pointed out that this is a false case and several false cases are being instituted under the Act. It may be noted this court cannot go into that question now. The question whether the case is false one or not has to be, in the first instance decided by the police investigating officer looking into the matter. Thus, it cannot be said that this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose any offence at all. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, it is difficult for this court to accept the above contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner, which raise disputed questions of the fact and they cannot be made a ground to quash the proceedings. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. 6. The petitioner is stated to be a Village Sarpanch. In view of this, the police are directed to keep in view S.41 Cr.P.C. as it stands now before taking a decision to arrest him. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. April 20, 2011. *BVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No. 3454 of 2011 April 20, 2011 [1] 2011 (4) SCALE 101