HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.Nos. 5405 and 5523 of 2007 Date: 20-04-2010 Between: C. Kondayya ……….. petitioner and State rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another ………. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.Nos. 5405 and 5523 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions have been filed by A-1 and A-2 to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.127 of 2006 of Renigunta Police Station, Chittoor District. As seen from the record, it appears that the defacto complainant is the Panchayat Secretary and A-1 is the Vice Sarpanch of Venkatapuram village, Renigunta Mandal. A-2, who is the retired TTD employee, is the friend of A-1. The post of Panchayat Secretary has been reserved to the members of the Schedule Caste community. The defacto complainant is the member of the Schedule Caste community, whereas A-1 and A-2 are not the members of the Schedule Caste or Tribe community. A reading the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police prima facie go to show that A-1 used to harass the defacto complainant. She was made to wait for hours together in front the of the house of A-1 for the keys of the gram panchayat office and when she requested to handover a duplicate key, A-1 is alleged to have threatened that he would see that she is removed from her service and that she was insulted in the name of her caste. A-2 is also alleged to have insulted the defacto complainant and directed her to visit his house and to report the affairs of the gram panchayat though he has no concern with the same. Several incidents have been mentioned by the defacto complainant in the complaint. It is further alleged that on 27-09- 2006 the defacto complainant was coming to the gram panchayat office and at that time A-1 and A-2 went there and abused her alleging that she recommended bogus ration cards and that she would not be allowed to enter into the gram panchayat office and that the illegalities committed by her would be exposed by TV9 and she was abused in the name of her caste. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the alleged incident took place on 27-09- 2006, no report was given till 05-10-2006 and that there is a delay of more than seven days in giving the report. It is also alleged that no ingredients of the alleged offence are made out from the contents of the complaint. It is the settled law that mere delay in reporting the matter cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. It is for the trial Court to decide whether the prosecution has explained the delay or not and what is the effect of the delay in appreciating the evidence of the defacto complainant. As far as the ingredients of Section 3 (i) (x) of SC, ST (POA) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) is concerned, there is nothing on record to say that no ingredients those sections are attracted. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment in BUDAPAP v. STATE OF A.P. [1], wherein it was held that in order to attract the provisions under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, there must be an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioners know that the defacto complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. In view of the same, the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case and can be distinguished. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners never intended to harass the defacto complainant and therefore, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against them. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case without being influenced by the observations, if any, made in this order. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 20-04-2010 YCR [1] 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 106 (A.P.)