IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3899 OF 2009 Between: Maddala Veerraju … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3899 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (x) of the SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act), in P.R.C. No.1 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Addateegala. 2. It is alleged that on 05.12.2007 at about 9.00 a.m., when the second respondent/de facto complainant/victim was attending to National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme works at Povvala Cheruvu in Kimmuru Village of Addateegala Mandal, the petitioner in his capacity as Sarpanch obstructed him, questioned his propriety in attending to works in his Gram Panchayat without his knowledge, beat him with hands and legs, threatened him with dire consequences and abused him in the name of his caste. The second respondent is stated to belong to mala caste which is a schedule caste. Truth or otherwise of the said incident has to be decided by the trial Court after full trial. 3. The only point urged by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to Kondakapu caste which is a schedule tribe and that therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under the Act. It is contended for the petitioner that though the Returning Officer objected him to contest for the post of Sarpanch on the ground of he not belonging to schedule tribe, the Appellate Authority namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the District Election Officer, permitted him to contest the post and that he was ultimately elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also filed his school certificate, certificate issued by Tahsildar to show that he belongs to Kondakapu community. He also filed copies of caste certificates relating to his father and grandfather. On the other hand, it is contended by the second respondent’s counsel that no certificate was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar to the petitioner about he belonging to schedule tribe community and that it is a got-up document. The second respondent filed communications under the Right to Information Act given by the Mandal Revenue Officer to him to the effect that no such certificate of caste was issued to the petitioner on the date alleged by him. Thus, there is dispute with regard to the caste to which the petitioner belongs to. It is purely a question of fact. This Court in this petition cannot go into and decide the said controversy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a matter to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence of both thae parties and after appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence to be produced by both the parties during trial. I do not see any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower Court. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 26, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3899 OF 2009 August 26, 2010 KL