HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5932 OF 2007 DATE:20-08-2010 BETWEEN N.Basaiah & Another …Petitioners AND The State, rep. by S.H.O., Yalal Police Station, Tandur Sub-division, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5932 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the proceedings initiated for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in P.R.C.No.21 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tandur. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the witnesses who have spoken about the alleged incident are planted witnesses and that the petitioners are residents of Jakkepalli Village of R.R.District, and whereas, the second respondent- complainant is native of Nellore and working as teacher and therefore, there is no possibility for the petitioners to know her caste and other family particulars. L.W.2, who is son of the second respondent is aged about 10 years and his evidence is not believable, and that the second respondent with a mala fide intention, initiated the impugned proceedings to settle her private and personal grudge and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. The complaint allegations disclose that the second respondent-complainant is a teacher by profession and working in U.P.S. at Jakkepally village of Yalala Mandal and residing in the rented house in the village. A quarrel took place between the son of the petitioners and the son of the complainant on 10.1.2007 at Rachabanda of Jakkepally village. On the same day at around 5.30 p.m. while the son of the complainant was passing through, while L.Ws.3 to 7 were standing at the site, A.1 (second petitioner herein) addressed the son of the complainant to be an illegitimate son as he born out of illicit relation of his mother with someone else and abused him by taking his caste name. A.1 also asked the son of the complainant to bring his mother (complainant) so that she would get her raped by her husband and saying so, she manhandled him. On seeing the said incident, some of the children rushed to the complainant and informed her about the incident. On that the complainant rushed to the scene and A.1 and A.2 (petitioners herein) revolted against her and they abused the complainant in the broad day light and in the public view taking her caste name saying that “Emi Peekuthave Madiga Lanja Ekkadi Nundi Vachi Ikkada Udyogam Chesthunnavu”. Thus, the complaint allegation clearly constitutes an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The present case does not fall under any of the illustrations enumerated by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604). Therefore, I do not see any ground to quash the impugned proceedings. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to seek bail in view of filing of the charge sheet from the competent Court. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 20, 2010 Tsr.