IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4086 of 2009 Between: Vonkateswaram Sai China Venkata Subba Rao .. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to call for the records relating to Sessions case No.19 of 2008 (PRC No.8 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole) on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, Ongole, Prakasam District and consequential complaint in FIR No.236 of 2006, dated 12-09-2006 and quash the same. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.V. BHASKARA REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri C.V. Bhaskara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent. No notice is being ordered to the 2nd respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is facing prosecution in Sessions Case No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Ongole concerning the alleged incident that occurred on 18-03-2006 involving the 2nd respondent herein and the petitioner. The complaint by the 2nd respondent to the police was given belatedly on 12-09-2006 and the police still registered the crime, investigated into it and stated that the result of their investigation in accordance with the evidence of 11 witnesses recorded by them, probablised that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner about committal of offences under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Subsequent to launch of the prosecution, it is seen from the material papers filed by the petitioner that the Special Court found it fit and appropriate to frame charges under these two provisions, for which charge sheet was filed. Though it is true that there appears to be inordinate and inexplicable delay in the 2nd respondent giving report to the police after the alleged incident, the said gap of about six months by itself cannot be, per se, a ground to take recourse to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, which is available only in rarest of rare cases. Such a jurisdiction, which has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection, cannot be exercised in this case where the statutory investigating agency after independent investigation found existence of prima facie case against the petitioner and the trial Court after appropriate consideration found it necessary to frame charges against the petitioner concerning the allegations. The truth or otherwise of the allegations has to be, therefore, gone into during trial and cannot be determined by any deep fact finding enquiry in a summary proceeding like this. Therefore, the criminal petition cannot be sustained and is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18-08-2009 Svv