HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6186 OF 2008 DATE:29-10-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 (For short, ‘A-1 to A-3’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Sessions Case No.117 of 2007, pending on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short, ‘The Act’) registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (x) of the Act. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 to A-3, the Respondent No. 2 is the De-facto Complainant in the Sessions Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Sessions Case. 3. The prosecution version in brief is as follows : one Smt. Y. Savithri @ Sabitha, wife of Ramu is the M.P.T.C. of Kollampally village and belongs to Scheduled Caste Madiga community. The de-facto complainant along with her husband left for Dhanwada on 05-04-2006 and met one Ram Mohan Reddy, local MLA and discussed with him about the works of their village and returned to their village at 05-00 p.m. and while proceeding near the house of Syed Jalali Hussain (Nawab) and on his call when they went there at that time A-1 to A-3 used filthy language against the de-facto complainant saying “Madiga lanjadana’ then she questioned why they were using abusive language against her, they beat her with hands and also insulted her touching their caste due to dispute over the allotment of works given to the village by the Government. Hence, A-1 to A-3 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 that the de-facto complainant belongs to Christian community and married her husband on 30-10-2001 as per the Christian Marriage Act at Shalem Church, Kollampally. Originally one Vedeppa lodged a complaint against her, which was initiated for the cancellation of her S.C. Certificate issued by the M.R.O. concerned bearing No.C/3352/98, dated 28-10-1998 and C/4084/01, dated 01-12-2001 vide G.O.Ms. No.58, Social Welfare (J) Department, dated 12-05-1997 and a scrutiny committee was constituted by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, and that Officer conducted an inquiry on 31-08-2002 in the matter after following the due procedure laid down under the Act 16 of 1993 and issued notice to the de-facto complainant under Form- VI on different dates and finally on 30-06-2004 the scrutiny committee found that she did not belong to Scheduled Caste and her caste certificate (issued by the M.R..O by issuing proceedings G.O.Ms. No.58, Social Welfare (J) Department, dated 12-05-1997 and therefore the certificate held by her vide certificate bearing No.C/3352/98, dated 28-10-1998 and C/4084/01, dated 01-12-2001) stood cancelled with immediate effect. Subsequently, she approached the Government with her influence and got the cancellation orders dated 12-05-1997 set aside and issued proceedings under G.O.Ms. No.52, dated 24-06- 2002 and the same powers were exercised by the Government under Section 8 (2) of the Act 16 of 1993 without examining relevant rules, evidence of the father and pastor of the Church beside others and without giving opportunity to the original Complainant Vadeppa of being heard. Hence, the entire proceedings against A-1 to A-3 in S.C. No.117 of 2007 are liable to be quashed. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings against A-1 to A-3 in the Sessions Case? 6. It is pertinent to note here that though her caste certificate was cancelled by issuing the proceedings under G.O.Ms. No.58, dated 12-05-1997, subsequently they were set aside vide G.O.Ms. No.52, dated 24-06-2002. The claim of A-1 to A-3 that by using political influence she got it cancelled and hence the same cannot be taken into consideration at this stage, the merits of the case cannot be gone into now. Further, unless G.O.Ms. No.52, dated 24-06- 2002 is cancelled, it cannot be said that she does not belong to scheduled caste. Further, simply because the offence covered by section 3 (2) (x) of the Act can be quashed it does not mean that the proceedings with regards to the other offences are also liable to be quashed. Hence, there are no merits in the Petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 29-10-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 161 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6186 OF 2008 October, 29, 2011 DSH