THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. PETITION No. 2656 of 2008. ORDER: This criminal petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in P.R.C.No. 16 of 2007 on the file of the Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur, Guntur district. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners who are the accused in the above PRC belong to Kamma community and supporters of TDP while the de facto complainant and Lws 2 and 3 are the victims and they belong to Hindu Mala Caste and that there was political rivalry between the accused and Lws 1 to 3. On 24.3.2007 at about 11 a.m. while Grama Sabha was going on in the office of Panchayat Board, Pedapalem, the 1st petitioner/A.1 went there in drunken condition and picked up a quarrel and abused in filthy language and tried to disturb the meeting, then Lws 1 to 3 asked about his misbehaviour, admonitioned him and sent him away from the place of meeting. Keeping the same in mind, A.1 to A.3 attacked Lws 1 to 3 on 25.3.2007 at the centre of Pedapalem village and beat them with hands, criminally intimidated them and also abused them by naming their Caste as ‘Mala Naa Kodakallara’ and fled away. On the complaint lodged by Lw.1, the Police Ponnur registered a case in Cr.No. 40 of 2007 under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 3 (1) (x) SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 and filed charge sheet against the accused before the learned Magistrate who took it on file as PRC.No. 16 of 2007. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the de facto complainant and the prosecution witnesses do not belong to Scheduled Caste and they are the Christians and in support of his contention, he also produced a certificate issued by a Pastor of Ponnur which show that the marriage of relatives of the de facto complainant was performed in Ponnur Church. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contended that the learned single Judge of this Court also granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the ground that the de facto complainant was following Christianity. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contended that this Court issued notice to the complainant in this petition and though the complainant received the notice, he failed to appear before this Court to oppose this petition and his non- appearance before this Court also indicates that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to quash the charge sheet in PRC.No. 16 of 2007. Learned single Judge of this Court might have observed while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners that the de facto complainant was following Christianity but that observation is not binding on this Court. Whether the de facto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or a converted Christian is a question of fact to be decided only after trial. Further, the certificate purported to have been issued by a Pastor of Ponnur Church does not show that the marriage of the de facto complainant was performed in the Church of Ponnur. Further more, the prosecution collected a certificate issued by Lw.15 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponnur stating that Lws 1 to 3 belong to Hindu Mala Caste. The said certificate was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer (Lw.15) after making an enquiry in the village. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court solely basing on the certificate issued by a Pastor of Ponnur Church, to quash the charge sheet against the petitioners, particularly in view of the fact that Lw.15 issued a certificate stating that Lws 1 to 3 belong to Hindu Mala Caste. Further, the plea of the petitioners that the de facto complainant and other witnesses belong to Christian Community and do not belong to Scheduled Caste is a question of fact, which can be decided only after trial in the case. Therefore, it is premature to say that the allegations in the complaint do not attract the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 and the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 01.07.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. PETITION No. 2656 of 2008. ORDER: Dt. 01.07.2010.