IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, the 30th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.P.No. 5146 of 2011 Between: Shammala Begum and another …Petitioners and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 5146 of 2011 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. In this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners herein, who are Accused No.2 and 3 in Cr.No. 34 of 2011 of P.S., Eluru Rural, West Godavari District are seeking quashing of the said FIR. The offences alleged are those punishable under sections 447, 379, 323 and 506 (2) IPC and S. 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attoricities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two points. The first point is that the incident is said to have occurred on 27-12-2010, whereas the complaint is given on 29—01—2011 and the delay is not explained and therefore this is a strong ground for quashing the FIR. It may be noted that there is no Rule that mere delay in giving FIR falsifies the case and it is a matter to be decided on evidence or by the investigating agency. Hence this contention cannot be accepted. 4. The second point is that the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is said to have been committed against one Gera Satish Kumar and since he, himself, has not given the complaint, whereas the complaint is given by a person who does not belong to either a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe that is another ground for quashing the FIR. There is no force in this contention also. It may be noted that criminal law can be set in motion by anybody, except in certain exceptional cases. The FIR is registered for the offences punishable under sections 447, 379, 323 and 506 (2) IPC and S. 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attoricities) Act, 1989 and as the matter is still at the investigation stage all the pleas raised by the petitioners’ counsel regarding the civil dispute and pendency of the suit fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact and cannot be decided in this petition. 5. It may also be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale V. State of Maharashtra[1] laid down that the question whether the ingredients of offence under the Act are attracted or not is a matter to be decided by the investigating Agency and therefore mere absence of all the ingredients cannot be a ground for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances I am unable to agree with the petitioners’ counsel for admitting this petition. Accordingly the relief for quashing the FIR is rejected and the police can go ahead with the investigation. 6. Sri Chidmbaram lastly pointed out that the first petitioner is aged 45 years and the second petitioner is about 52 years and going by their disposition and age they could not have committed this offence. May be, but nothing can be said about the same one-way or the other in this petition. However, in view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the police are directed to keep in view S.41 (1)(b) Cr.,P.C. as it stands now before taking a decision about their arrest. 7. This petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 30, 2011. *BVS [1] 209 (3) SCC 789