THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.790 of 2008 Date of Order: 24-06-2010 Between: Valluru Madhusudhana Naidu and others ..Petitioners and KollapudiSubaramaiah and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.790 of 2008 Oral order: Petitioners, who are A2 to A4 in PRC.No.52 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”), filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings contending that on 1st respondent giving the complaint, the III Town Police Station, Nellore registered a case in Cr.No.216 of 2005. The DSP, Nellore Rural investigated into the case and examined 12 witnesses and after completing the investigation he filed a final report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as “false”. Thereafter, the complainant filed protest petition. The Magistrate after recording the sworn statements of petitioners/A2 to A4 took cognizance for the above said offence against A1 to A4. The alleged incident took place on 17-10-2005 at 7 P.M. and report was given on the next day i.e. 18-10-2005. The 1st respondent sold his house to one Krishna Reddy through him the wife of A1 purchased the said land, which was in dispute. Therefore, the vendor of A1—Krishna Reddy filed O.S.No.327 of 2005 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in which he also field I.A.No.629 of 2005 which was dismissed. Then he carried the matter in appeal— CMA No.50 of 2005, which was also dismissed confirming the order passed in I.A. It is stated that civil proceedings are pending between the 2nd petitioner and one Krishna Reddy. The complainant has not stated as to why the petitioners have abused him in the name of his caste. Further, the protest petition does not refer to any motive and simply stated how you got that patta “MALA MADIGALAKU ELA ISTARURA” (meaning thereby how the pattas will be issued to Mala Madigas. It does not constitute any offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Therefore, taking cognizance by the Magistrate is totally non- application of mind and liable to be quashed. Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that wife of A1 gave a report against the 1st respondent before the II Town Police Station, Nellore on 12-10-2005 which was registered for the offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC. As a counter blast to the same, six days after i.e. on 18- 10-2005 the present complaint was made, which is nothing but abuse of process of Court. When the DSP filed his final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on 22-09-2006 the protest petition was also filed on the same day wherein it is not stated that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated the 1s t respondent/complainant. Therefore, taking cognizance by the Magistrate for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is not proper. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the 1st respondent contended that whether the accused intentionally insulted the 1st respondent/complainant and he belongs to SC or ST can be gone into only during the course of trial as held by the Supreme Court in ASHABAI MACHINDRA ADHAGALE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[1]. Prima facie, the complaint allegations and the statement recorded by the police clearly disclose that the accused abused the complainant in the name of his caste, which constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Further, the complaint allegations also show that the 2nd accused caught hold the collar of the complainant and other accused beat him and abused in filthy language, which constitute what offence have to be gone during the course of trial. In the protest petition filed by the complainant and the sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate clearly discloses that the accused manhandling and abusing the complainant in the name of his caste which, prima facie, constitutes an offence and it has to be enquired into by the Magistrate. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 24-06-2010 Murthy [1] (2009) 3 SCC 789