IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8710, 8711 & 8713 of 2009 DATE: 02.12.2011 CRL.P.No.8710 of 2009 Between: Sikentikala Ramulu and another …… Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor And another …..Respondents CRL.P.No.8711 of 2009 Between: Sikentikala Ramulu …… Petitioner And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor And another …..Respondents CRL.P.No.8713 of 2009 Between: Sikentikala Ramulu and another …… Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor And another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8710, 8711 & 8713 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 in Crl.P.No.8710 of 2009 are accused of oﬀences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506/34 I.P.C and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act). The petitioner in Crl.P.No.8711 of 2009 is accused of oﬀences punishable under Sections 506, 406 I.P.C and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. In Crl.P. No.8713 of 2009, the petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of oﬀences punishable under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(i) (x) of the Act. Ramulu is the common accused in all the cases. It is alleged that the accused abused the respective defacto-complainants in the name of their Mala caste and insulted them on diﬀerent occasions and diﬀerent dates. The places of oﬀences are in a quarry. It is contended that the scenes of oﬀences in these cases are not public places. But they are all places of public view. There is no dispute about Ramulu obtaining lease of quarry land allotted to society members who belong to scheduled caste. The disputes between the parties arose in connection with the said lease. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that it is only after issue of notice by Ramulu to the defacto-complainant/2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.8711 of 2009, the said false case was ﬁled and that all the cases are false cases ﬁled with an intention to coerce him to agree for their terms. The oﬀence in Crl.P.No.8710 of 2009 was said to have been committed on 23.05.2009. The oﬀence in Crl.P.No.8711 of 2009 is stated to have been committed on 07.07.2009. The oﬀence in Crl.P.No.8713 of 2009 is stated to have been committed on 04.03.2009. The defacto-complainants in these three cases are diﬀerent persons and not one and the same person. In my opinion, truth or falsity of the allegations cannot be subject matter of these criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C as it is a question of fact which the investigating oﬃcer has to conclude after collecting the entire evidence during the course of investigation. Having regard to allegations in respect of F.I.Rs I do not ﬁnd any valid or legal reasons to stall investigation in these cases at their threshold. 2) In the result, all the criminal petitions are dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 02, 2011 ksh