HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO. 3796 OF 2010 Date: 27.04.2010 Between: Gomasani Radha and others. …..Petitioners And: The State of AP., rep. by its PP And another. …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.3796 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 8/A-1 to A-8 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, the Act). The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is working as Aaya in Devi clinic being run by Dr.Tirupati Parusuram and another at Podalakur. The date of offence is 15.06.2009. The 2nd respondent filed private complaint before the Magistrate and it was inquired into and was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. Though originally the complaint was filed alleging offences under Sections 448, 324, 427, 352, 290, 506, 500, 120-B I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(v), Section 3(1)(x) and Section 3(1)(xv) of the Act, the Magistrate took the case on file for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act only. The Magistrate did not take cognizance of the complaint for other offences because Dr.Parusuram who is running the clinic gave another report and it was registered by the police as case in Crime No.91 of 2009 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Offence alleged in Crime No.91 of 2009 is one relating to alleged abuses made in the name of caste against Dr.Parusuram. Whereas offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act alleged in this P.R.C. No.45 of 2009 is the alleged abuses made by the accused against the 2nd respondent who is Aaya in the hospital of Dr.Parusuram. Both the offences are distinct and separate, even though they were said to have occurred on the same day i.e., on 15.06.2009. The Magistrate was conscious of the fact of Crime No.91 of 2009 pending investigation with the police. With the said knowledge, the Magistrate took the present private complaint of the Aaya on file for limited offences alleged against her only. Therefore, this is not a case which attracts provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the 6th petitioner/A-6 is also a person belonging to scheduled caste and that the Magistrate could not have taken the private complaint on file against A-6 for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. After considering the material placed by both the parties, the trial Court will frame appropriate charges against A-6 having regard to his caste. Truth or otherwise of allegations made in the private complaint of the 2nd respondent and whether it was an improvement from crime No.91 of 2009 and whether the case was foisted because of civil disputes between the parties are questions to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence to be let in by both the parties. This Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into and decide those questions of fact. 3) Hence, the petition is dismissed. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:27.04.2010. KSH