HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P. No. 8313 of 2008 DATED: 03.12.2011 Between: Sahadeva Reddy & two others .. Petitioners And 1. Borugudla Chinnaiah 2. The State of A.P. .. Respondents O R D E R:- This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Cr.No. 60 of 2008 of Bhakarapet Police Station, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District registered for offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) and Sections 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC on the ground that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners (A1, A2 and A4). 2) The brief facts of the case are that; On 17.10.2008 at about 11:00 A.M. at M.P.D.Os. office, Chinnagottigallu, a meeting was conducted by the District State Counsellor, B. Chenga Reddy, during which time, the District Counsellor discussed the works to be carried out under NREGS Scheme. While so, the 1st petitioner, who was in-charge M.P.P., and the 2nd petitioner who was the Sarpanch along with A3 and the 3rd petitioner-A4 got angry and abused the 1st respondent-complainant by his caste as “Maalnakodaka” and beat him with a chair, and hence the corresponding report was given to the police concerned. 3) It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is no iota of truth in the allegations made in the report and all of them are only invented for the purpose of lodging the report against the petitioners and the informant and the petitioners belong to two different parties and there is bitter political rivalry between them and the informant was not present in the M.D.O. office at the relevant point of time as he was neither elected representative nor got any right to attend the review meeting conducted in the M.D.O. office. Further, the report was lodged as a counter blast to the termination order dated 30.07.2008 given to one D.Chengalrayulu who is a close relative of the informant as the said person was collecting bribes from the public while participating in NGRY Scheme. 4) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners (A1, A2 and A4) and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material placed on record. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act reads: Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe- “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”. shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine”. 5) Therefore, it is enough if the petitioners insulted the complainant in the said manner in order to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 6) There is material to prosecute the petitioners (A1, A2 and A4) for the alleged offence prima facie. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case as prima facie material is there for the prosecution of the petitioners (A1, A2 & A4). Therefore, trial has to be conducted in order to determine their complicity in the crime. There are no merits in this Criminal Petition, and accordingly, it is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 03.12.2011 bcj