HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.9240 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and also Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner is District Educational Officer, Kurnool. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is a person belonging to scheduled caste and he is working as Senior grade Teacher in Kurnool District. Background of the case is transfer of Teachers in Kurnool District. Grievance of the 2nd respondent is that he was transferred to a remote village in C.Belagal Mandal. It is alleged that inspite of representations, the accused did not consider his representation and mislead the authorities by making incorrect notings in the note file. It is alleged that on 08.08.2010, the 2nd respondent along with Chandrasekhar met the accused and touched his feet and sought for his help and that one K.P.Abiram, who was present there also recommended the 2nd respondent’s case to the accused and that inspite of it, there was no response from the accused. It is specifically alleged that the accused stated that the persons belonging to scheduled caste have more arrogance and that they should go to the place where they were transferred and that the 2nd respondent was making extra conversation and that he knows how to suppress him and he would suppress him. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as the 2nd respondent did not get his choice posting, false report is given against the petitioner with concocted allegations. Truth or otherwise of the allegations in the report, is a question of fact, which this Court cannot go into and decide in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the Investigating Officer to come to a conclusion on the said aspect after collecting entire evidence during investigation. At any rate, Section 4 of the Act has no application to the allegations in the report, since it is not the second respondent’s complaint that the accused failed to perform his duty which he is expected to perform “under the Act”. Except to this extent, I do not find any other valid or legal reasons to interfere with investigation of this case at its threshold. Subject to my observation with regard to Section 4 of the Act, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 3rd November, 2011. PNV