IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.763 of 2008 Between: M.Srinivasa Reddy and others … Petitioners And The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.763 of 2008 ORDER: - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”) is filed by the petitioners/accused to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.28 OF 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, where they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “IPC”) and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs., STs., (POA) Act, 1989 (for brevity, “the Act”) r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage of Public Properties Act, 1984. According to the complaint and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecution witnesses, A1 and A3 went to village to remove the burning lights of the electrical poles with an intention to make them suffer in darkness and at that juncture when L.W.1 resisted their act, A1 in drunken stage abused L.W.1 with the name of her caste and fisted on her chest with his hands forcibly and when she raised cries and when L.W.2 went in rescue of L.W.1, A1 abused L.W.2 indecently on the name of her caste and caught hold of her jacket on the back side and forcibly dragged and as a result of it the jacket was torn and forcibly came upon L.W.1 and A4 kicked L.W.2 with his legs and during their scuffle, A1 fell on the ground and sustained injury due to poking of stone. A4 threatened to kill them by hurling bombs. During the course of occurrence, A3 had broken the burning bulbs and caused damage to the public properties. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the absence of any specific overtacts against A2, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the absence of allegations that the accused was not a member of SC or ST and they intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate the complainant within the public view, the petitioners/accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. For the said proposition he relied on a decision of the apex Court reported in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. and others [1]. I see no substance in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners since all the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 323 r/w 34 IPC, no specific overtacts need be attributed against all the accused in the charge sheet. Further, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is over ruled by a decision of a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra[2], wherein it was held that during investigation or at the time of framing of charge or at the time of trial, it is open to the accused to show that he either belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or not, so that applicability of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is ruled out. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to move the application to discharge, after leading evidence if no case is made out against them. Further A4 is given an opportunity to file an application to dispense with his presence on the dates of hearing, except when his presence is required in the Court and on filing such application, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 1st July 2010 lmv [1] 2008(12 SCC 531 [2] (2009) 3 SCC 789