HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3868 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner seeks for quashing of the investigation in Cr.No.37 of 2004 on the file of Chandrayanagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, against the sole petitioner. Curiously, it is a case between two police officials. The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, is a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The 1st respondent, who is the defacto complainant, is the Inspector of Police. 2. The complaint was lodged by the 1st respondent against the petitioner before Chandrayanagutta police station on 22.2.2004. The same was registered as FIR in Cr.No.37 of 2004 by the police u/Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Casts & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act ( ‘the Act’ for short) as well as u/Secs.323 and 353 IPC. Investigation has been in progress. At that stage, the present petition is laid by the petitioner seeking for quashing of the FIR. 3. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner took me through all the statements of the witnesses recorded u/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of the 1st respondent in the above complaint. The genesis of the incident is the Vijaya Bheri Ralley organized by Telugu Desam Party on 22.2.2004. On that day, at about 1.35 p.m. when the 1st respondent was on traffic duty at Mahaboobnagar cross roads at Hyderabad, the petitioner allegedly went to the scene of offence where the 1st respondent was on duty and abused the 1st respondent touching upon his community. The petitioner also allegedly caused simple hurt to the 1st respondent leading to the offence u/sec.323 IPC. Further, the 1st respondent alleged that the petitioner used criminal force upon him at the time the 1st respondent was discharging his official duties and that the petitioner thus, became liable for the offence punishable u/Sec. 353 IPC also. 4. I have already pointed out that the prosecution has examined the persons referred to in the complaint before the Magistrate u/Sec.164 Cr.P.C. Sri P.Raja Babu is the 1st respondent himself. The complaint alleged that Saravasri Mohammed Fazil, Sub Inspector of Police, Falaknuma Police Station, Mohammed Qasim, P.C.9281 of Traffic P.S.Falaknuma, Bangalkar Satya Prakash Rao, P.C.6371 Traffic P.S.Falaknuma, Medipally Yadaiah, H.G.3585 of Traffic P.S.Falaknuma, Sharfu Pasha, H G 6263 of Traffic P.S. Falaknuma, N.Anjaiah, HG 1959 of Traffic P.S.Falaknuma, B.Balaraj, HG:5819 of Traffic P.S.Falaknuma, Gonamoni Hari Gopal, PC 2229 of P.S.Chandrayanagutta and Akula Ashok Kumar, Sub Inspdctor of Police, Chandrayanagutta were present and witnessed the incident. In the statements of Mohammed Fazil, Mohammed Qasim, Bangalkar Satya Prakash Rao, Sharfu Pasha, N.Anjaiah, B.Balaraj, Gonamoni Hari Gopal, Syed Majar Ali, Mohd. Chand, Md.Chand, M.Yadaiah and Ravindra under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there was no reference to the alleged abuse of the 1st respondent by the petitioner touching upon his community. None of them stated that the accused abused the 1st respondent touching upon his community. It is not as though, the witnesses were trying to protect the petitioner as he was a superior officer. They attributed overtacts to the petitioner against the 1st respondent. However, so far as the allegation that the petitioner committed the offence punishable u/Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act by abusing 1st respondent touching upon his community is concerned, the witnesses were unanimous in pointing out that such an incident did not occur. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that no prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner so far as the offence punishable u/Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned. 5. As already pointed out, all the witnesses spoke about the overtacts of the petitioner against the 1st respondent which constitute the offences punishable u/Secs.323 and 353 IPC. However, while the incident occurred on 22.2.2004 admittedly, the charge sheet has not been filed so far. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable u/Secs.353 and 323 IPC now stands barred by limitation u/Sec.468 Cr.P.C. The 1st respondent and the prosecution thus, are in a difficult situation. So far as the offence u/Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, certainly there is no limitation but the offence prima-facie is not made out. So far as the offences u/Secs. 323 and 353 IPC are concerned, the failure of the prosecution to lay the charge sheet till now bars the prosecution of the petitioner for these offences in view of Sec.468 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner with reference to Cr.No. 37 of 2004 of Chandrayanagutta Police Station is illegal, and cannot be permitted. The further proceedings against the petitioner in connection with Cr.No.37 of 2004 are quashed. 6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Mjl/*