HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3019 OF 2008 DATE:02-09-2011 BETWEEN: Shashikala @ Rajini. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3019 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused (For short, ‘the Accused’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.179 of 2008 of Begumpet P.S., registered for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 511 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the accused, the second Respondent is the de-facto complainant in the above said crime. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the F.I.R. 3. The prosecution version is that the de-facto complainant is the owner of Flat No.402, A.1 block, R.K.Towers, Mayuri Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad, and the accused has hatched a plan to carry out illegal acts in order to grab the flat and further on 11.05.2008 at 2.30 p.m., the de-facto complainant was doing work in that property and the accused suddenly entered the house along with her aides and intentionally humiliated her with reference to her caste i.e., Scheduled Caste knowing fully well about her caste, not being a member of the S.C or S.T., as “you are mala woman and you are untouchable woman and mala people has no right to have properties and mala people should live in a hut in secluded places and you shall not have flats where we are living” and using other filthy language which cannot be revealed to the Hon’ble Court and the de-facto complainant with the help of her well wishers resisted his illegal and unlawful acts and then he left the place and so on and the incident took place within public view. 4. It is contended in the memorandum of the petition that the incident did not take place within public view and he is the owner of the flat and he also belongs to the same caste and therefore the provisions of the Act are not applicable here. It is also contended on behalf of the accused that as her daughter-in-law filed complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. her mother-in-law/the de-facto complainant foisted this case. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings? 6. Significantly, there is allegation that whereas the de-facto complainant who is a member of the Scheduled Caste is the owner of the flat, the accused is trying to dispossess her there from not being a member of the same caste which attract Section 3 (1) (v) of the Act and further it is also alleged that he abused her with reference to her caste in public view which is attracted by Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Though it is claimed by the accused that those sections are not applicable as she also belongs to the same caste, no legal document is filed in that regard. Those aspects alleged by the de-facto complainant are to be decided basing upon necessary evidence to be recorded. In other words, at this stage those aspects cannot be decided. 7. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused that in case the Petition is going to be dismissed a direction may be given to the concerned Police to take recourse under Section 41 (a) of the Cr.P.C. in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, it is observed in the facts and circumstances of the case that the concerned police are directed to take recourse under Section 41 (a) Cr.P.C. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 02-09-2011. DSH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 53 CRIMINAL PETITION No.3019 of 2008 02-09-2011 DSH/VJL