THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4820 OF 2009 Dated 14th July, 2010 Between: Eada Kamalakar Rao …Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to Government and five others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside FIR No.23 of 2009 registered for the offences under Sections 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner is an Accountant in Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, Mothkur Village, Nalgonda District. His mother was elected as Sarpanch for Thummalapalli Village and has been residing in the same Village. The abovementioned crime was registered against the petitioner and two others under the abovementioned provisions. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the first information report itself by filing the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even if the allegations contained in the first information report on their face value are taken into consideration, they do not disclose commission of an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. I have carefully gone through the contents of the complaint, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that when the de facto complainant along with her husband has gone to the residence of the Sarpanch, the petitioner; one Amboji Raghavulu, S/o Raghavulu and Amboji Raghavulu, S/o Sailu along with their followers have beaten the husband of the de facto complainant causing bleeding injuries and that the petitioner has allegedly said that the de facto complainant and her husband are not entitled to draw cement for construction of houses under Indiramma Scheme, as they have not attended the meeting held in connection with visit of Sonia Gandhi, and that apart from assaulting the de facto complainant’s husband, they abused them in caste name and behaved in an indecent manner. In my opinion, it cannot be said that if the allegations in the first information report are taken on their face value, they do not constitute commission of an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. It is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner and other accused in the event a charge sheet is filed before the Special Court. The law is well settled that the scope of interference of this Court at the pre- investigation stage with the first information report is very limited and narrow. Unless the allegations in the first information report do not disclose commission of an offence, this Court will not interfere with and quash case. (Bhajan Lal v s . State of Haryana[1]; R.Kalyani vs. Janak C.Mehta[2]; Mahesh Chandra Chowdry vs. State of Rajastan[3] and Devendra vs. State of U.P[4]). For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the first information report registered against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 05.03.2009 is vacated. WPMP No.6319 of 2009 and WVMP No.1687 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th July, 2010 vrn [1] 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 = 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 [2] (2009) 1 SCC 516 [3] (2009) 4 SCC 439 [4] (2009) 7 SCC 495