IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5105 OF 2008 Between: Vutla Narasimha Reddy … PETITIONER And The State of A.P. & another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5105 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The petitioner/accused is M.P.T.C. member. The second respondent/de facto complainant is Z.P.T.C. member. It is alleged in the report given by the second respondent that on 15.07.2008, there was general body meeting of Mandal Praja Parishad at M.P.D.O. Office, Kodakandla, and that while the meeting was going on, the accused insulted the second respondent by calling her as ‘pakka’ rowdy and she did not get over her caste habits. On that report, the Kodakandla police registered case in Crime No.49 of 2008 for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner. At this stage, it may be noted that on the same date of incident, i.e., on 05.07.2008 itself, the accused gave report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodakandla Police Station, to the effect that during general body meeting of Kodakandla Mandal Parishad held on the same day, when he raised his village problems, the second respondent entered into wordy altercation with him and also attacked him physically by catching hold of his collar and attempted to beat him with chair. On that report of the petitioner, the police registered Petty Case No.164 of 2008 for offence punishable under Section 355 I.P.C. against the second respondent and filed summary trial case before the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Thorrur. Four days after the alleged incident dated 15.07.2008 and three days after the police filed petty case against her, the second respondent gave the present report on 19.07.2008. 2. It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as a counter blast for the report given by the petitioner, the present report is given by the second respondent to the police alleging abuse in the name of caste. In the petty case, apart from showing the petitioner as the first witness, the police cited M.P.D.O., Tahsildar and media persons of Varta, Sakshi, Eenadu and Surya newspapers as witnesses to the incident. Reading of the events and contents of the successive reports undoubtedly disclose that the present report was given by the second respondent as an arm-twisting device and as counter blast to the report given by the petitioner against her. This is nothing short of abuse of process of law. 3. Hence, the petition is allowed quashing F.I.R. in Crime No.49 of 2008 of Kodakandla Police Station, Warangal District. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 05, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5105 OF 2008 August 05, 2010 KL