IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3420 OF 2010. Date:19.04.2010 Between:- Akkala Venkateswara Reddy and others ..Petitioners/Accused And The State of A.P., Station House Officer, Nagaram Police station, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- The accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.28 of 2010 of Nagaram Police Station, Guntur District are the petitioners. They are accused of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989. 2. It is alleged that on 27.03.2010, at 10 p.m, A-1 to A-3, in Sri Rama Mandiram compound, in the presence of many, abused the defacto complainant/second respondent in filthy language touching his ‘Mala’ caste. 3. It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that F.I.R. was registered on the basis of a report given by the second respondent, who is not an eye witness to the occurrence and on the basis of hear-say statement; and that the report was given two days after the occurrence to the police. 4. F.I.R. in this case was registered on 29.03.2010. Even as per the report, the second respondent was not at the scene. On information given to him, he gave the report to the police. At this stage, it may be noted that Section 154 Cr.P.C. speaks about information only and not evidence. It is not necessary that only an eye witness to the occurrence should figure as the first informant to the police. The delay in giving F.I.R. is a matter for appreciation of evidence. After recording entire statements, it is for the police to assess whether there is any significance to be attached to the said delay in giving the report. Admittedly, the second respondent was not present at the time of occurrence. He gave the report only after coming to know about the offence and thereafter, he gave the report. Details regarding the delay is a matter which has to be explained by the second respondent in his statement. 5. It is stated that A-2 is son of A-1; A-3 is brother of A-1 and that A-2 came to village while working in the Indian Army. It is further stated that false case was foisted out of motive. Truth or falsity of the case and motive for the case are all questions of fact. This Court, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may not be in a position to go into those aspects and give a finding thereon. Hence, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash this F.I.R. at its threshold. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 19th April 2010 AMD