* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR + CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 of 2008 %02.11.2011 # Basani Raghuveer and others. ….Petitioners Vs. $ Thogari Saraiah and the State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy Counsel for Respondent: 1. Smt Vasudha Nagraj Counsel for Respondent: 2. Public Prosecutor <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1.(2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 706 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 of 2008 Date:02.11.2011 Between: Basani Raghuveer and others. ..... Petitioners . AND Thogari Saraiah and the State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 of 2008 ORDER: As many as 15 accused in Crime No.69 of 2008 on the file of Kataram Police Station sought for the quashing of the F.I.R on the ground that prima facie case is not made out against them. The petitioners allegedly committed the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Section 109 IPC for allegedly violating the provisions of the Act against the 1st respondent. Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the accused contended that the prima facie case is not made out and that the case is filed only to harass the accused. Inter alia, he pointed out that on 07-05-2008 at about 5.00 P.M., the incident allegedly occurred. The complaint was lodged on 17-06-2008 at 6.00 P.M. There was a delay of about 40 days in lodging the complaint. It is his contention that the delay should defeat the case of the 1st respondent as the delay was not properly explained. 2. On the other hand, Smt Vasudha Nagraj, learned counsel representing the 1st respondent submitted that part of the delay was explained in the complaint itself. In the complaint, the 1st respondent stated that since the elders of the village wanted to mediate, the 2nd respondent waited and as the elders of the village did not interfere, he had no alternative but to lodge the complaint. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent further submitted that the 1st respondent who belonged to scheduled caste initially attempted to lodge a police complaint and when police refused to lodge the same, he had no alternative but to approach the Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which forced the police to register the case against the petitioners. Whether this is true or not is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into in this petition. It is necessary to examine this issue at the time of the trial. Where the 1st respondent prima facie explained the delay in lodging the compliant, I am afraid that the F.I.R cannot be quashed on the ground that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that absolutely no reason is assigned as to why the petitioners attacked the 1st respondent and that the very complaint is inherently improbable. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Vs. RAJIV DUBEY[1]. It was observed in that case that if the ingredients of the complaint are shown to be improbable and a conclusion could be reached that the complaint was with a view to abuse the process of the Court, the Court should interfere and quash the complaint. His contention is that the very complaint was lodged to abuse the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. It is the case of the 1st respondent that when the 1st respondent and others were engaged by the Forest Officials to pick up Thuniki Leaves, the consortium of contractors threatened, attacked beat and abused the 1st respondent and others and that in the process, the abuse against the 1st respondent was insulting him with reference to his community. It is evident from the complaint that the 1st respondent alleged that the petitioners abused the 1st respondent referring him to his community. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, there must be an intentional insult or intimidation to a member of the scheduled caste to attract the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. I am afraid that when a person was beaten and questioned about his conduct and activity with reference to his community, it would be tantamount to intention on the part of the accused to insult a member of the Scheduled Caste, constituting an offence within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. I, therefore, consider that the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act was prima facie made out from the complaint. As already pointed out that the delay was prima facie explained by the 1st respondent. 5. I, therefore, consider that this not a fit case where the complaint can be quashed. This petition accordingly is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Date:02.11.2011. L.R. Copy to be marked. mrb [1] (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 706