THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5566 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Kum. Sangeetha Nair, learned counsel representing the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. A perusal of the FIR in Crime No.431 of 2011 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station would show that it does contain allegations which attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.[1] and pointed out that the allegations in the FIR do not contain the ingredients as pointed out in the said decision and therefore this is a fit case for quashing the FIR. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in ASHABAI MACHINDRA ADHAGALE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[2] which is a three judge decision and latter in point of time pointed out that all the ingredients need not be mentioned in the FIR and according to the decision relied upon by him those can be ascertained in the investigation and therefore it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR. Thus in view of the latter decision the above contention of the petitioner’s counsel cannot be accepted. 3. The petitioner’s counsel then pointed out that earlier the petitioner gave a report to the police against the de facto complainant herein against her high handed attitude and that is registered as Crime No.315 of 2011 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station and when that case is pending the de facto complainant has given the present report and this is a strong ground for admitting the matter as mala fides are at writ large. It is difficult to accept this contention. It may be noted that whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not and whether they are vitiated by mala fides in the circumstances of the case have to be decided on evidence as they pertain to disputed questions of fact. In the circumstances I am unable to agree with the petitioner’s counsel. Hence the relief of quashing the FIR is rejected at the admission stage. 4. Having regard to the earlier report given by the petitioner to the police and the allegations made by him and also having regard to the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary in a case like this, the police shall take a decision about the arrest of the petitioner after completion of the investigation and having regard to Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as it stands today. 5. This criminal petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 12th July 2011 CVRK [1] (2008) 12 SUPREME COURT CASES 531 [2] (2009) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 789