IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.9070 OF 2010 Between:- C.S.Prasad …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.9070 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further investigation against the petitioner/accused in Cr.No.75 of 2010 of Chittoor I-Town Police Station. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. None appeared for the second respondent, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the second respondent, the police registered a case in Cr.No.75 of 2010 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to the complainant, he is working as a driver in the APSRTC and that on 29-07-2010 at about 3 or 4 P.M., he went to the depot office for taking loan application for securing loan for the treatment of his wife, who was suffering from cancer and the petitioner, who was in the office heckled and abused the complainant in the name of his caste and forcibly took away the loan application form from the hands of the complainant and tore them. It is further alleged that when the complainant protested against the same, the petitioner high handedly pushed him out of the office, while abusing him in the name of his caste. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, as a disciplinary authority, has taken disciplinary action against the second respondent, who was working as a driver and on account of the said grudge, the second respondent gave a false complaint against the petitioner. 5. The truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the complaint can come out only after due investigation is conducted. The complaint makes specific allegations against the petitioner prima facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged. 6. Having regard to the gravity of the nature of offences alleged and in view of the specific allegations contained therein, which require thorough investigation, it is considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash further investigation in the matter. There are no valid or justifiable grounds to quash further investigation in Cr.No.75 of 2010 of Chittoor I-Town Police Station. The investigation shall, therefore, go on. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner/accused is an employee of APSRTC, he may not be arrested till the conclusion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, if any. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed with the above direction. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th November, 2010 Lrkm.