THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5086 of 2009 BETWEEEN: Soragari Boya Sudhakar, S/o.Vijayudu & another … Petitioners/A1 & A2 AND The State of A.P. through P.S.Shantinagar & another … Respondents/Complainants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5086 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 504/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) in PRC.No.34 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alampur. It is contended by the Petitioners’ counsel that in the original report given by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to the police, he did not allege any ingredients touching the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and that the Police also originally did not register the case under that penal section and that subsequently after few days, the de facto complainant’s wife gave a petition to the Superintendent of Police making allegations touching the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and that this is nothing but abuse of process of law. After completing investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 alleging the above said offences against them. It is matter for appreciation of evidence whether subsequent introduction of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act in this case at the instance of the 2nd respondent’s wife is an after-thought or is a true one. This Court cannot undertake the said work in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Placing reliance on Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P.[1], it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that in the report given by the 2nd respondent to the police, he did not state that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and that the accused do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the accused abused him in he name of his caste with an intention to insult or humiliate him in place of public view. Insofar as castes of the 2nd respondent and the accused are concerned, the Investigating Officer examined Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate of Waddepally Mandal who issued caste certificates of the 2nd respondent as well as the accused to show that the 2nd respondent is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and the accused do not belong to such caste. Truth or otherwise of the allegations will have to be decided by the trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties. Decisions in Thakur Pratap Singh Vs. Stateof A.P.[2] and Gara Yesobu Vs. State of A.P.[3] were rendered by this Court on facts and evidence relating to those cases. There is no principle laid down therein in order to apply such principle herein. It is for the trial court to appreciate the evidence after trial. 2. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 24.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5086 of 2009 DATED: 24.02.2011 ysk [1] 2009-SCC(CR)-1-446 [2] 2005-ALD(Cri)-1-935 [3] 2005-ALT(Cri)-1-213