HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.5262 of 2010 Date: November 9, 2011 Between: Karra Yella Reddy, S/o.Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged about 48 Years, Occ:Advocate and another … Petitioners And K.Ranjith Rao, S/o.Rajulu, aged about 33 years, Occ:Lecturer in Vagdevi Engineering College, H.No.2-5-867, Circuit House Road, Nakkalgutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal District and another … Respondents Order: This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.40 of 2010 on the file of Mamnoor Police Station. The aforesaid crime is registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on a complaint dated 30.05.2010 filed by the 1st respondent herein. In the said complaint, it is alleged that, on 30.05.2010, when he was returning after performing duties as an invigilator for EAMCET examination, at about 1.20 p.m., petitioners herein, alleging that he is in love with their daughter, have abused and beat him. It is also alleged that they have insulted him intentionally in the name of his caste. This court, while issuing notice before admission, on 22.06.2010, granted interim stay of all further proceedings for a period of four weeks; thereafter no extension of stay is granted. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that during the pendency of the proceedings, 1st petitioner was arrested and released on bail. It is further submitted that the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein against the petitioners is false and concocted and the petitioners did not abuse the 1st respondent in the name of his caste and did not beat him as alleged; the complaint is filed by the 1st respondent with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners. Whether the petitioners have committed the offences as alleged is a matter for investigation by the Police. If the contents of the complaint are looked at, prima facie, the same will attract the offences made out against the petitioners. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the crime registered against the petitioners. However, as it is stated that the 1st petitioner is already arrested and released on bail and there is imminent threat of arrest of the 2nd petitioner, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner, I dispose of this petition directing the 2nd respondent not to arrest the 2nd petitioner till investigation in the crime in question is completed. It is open to the 2nd respondent to proceed with the investigation independently uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 9, 2011 MRR