L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be the President of the Community "development Society (C. D. S.) of Bellampally Municipality, Adilabad District, established in the year 1998, as part of a Central Government sponsored Scheme. It is her case that a meeting of the Selection Committee comprising of the Chairperson of the Municipality, commissioner of Municipality, Mandal Revenue Officer, Mandal Vocation Officer and the petitioner has taken place on 21-12-2002 for selection of certain Groups for implementation of the Mid-day Meal scheme. The petitioner contends that at the time when the list of selected groups was about to be typed, the 3rd respondent entered the chambers of the Chairperson at 8. 30 p. m. in an intoxicated condition, abused her and prevented the preparation of the list. The petitioner states that appehending threat to her security, she telephoned to the police. The police is stated to have come in time and on the complaint submitted by the petitioner, a case in Crime No. 109 of 2002 was registered against the 3rd respondent under Sections 290, 306, 384, IPC. The 3rd respondent is said to have been sent to medical examination and that it revealed that he was in an intoxicated condition.

( 2 ) THE 3rd respondent in turn submitted a complaint on the next day i. e. , on 21-12-2002 alleging that the petitioner had abused him in the name of Caste and thereby committed an offence under Section 3{l) (x) of S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 (for short, the Act ). F. I. R. No. 110 of 2002 was registered on this complaint in i Town P. S. , Bellampally. the petitioner seeks the relief of quashing of the same. It is her case that even if the complaint of the 3rd respondent which constitutes the basis for registration of F. I. R. , is taken on the face value, it does not disclose any offence.

( 3 ) A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It supports the case of the petitioner to the extent of registering F. I. R. No. 109 of 2002 against the 3rd respondent and sending him to medical examination. So far as the F. I. R. No. 110 of 2002 registered against the petitioner is concerned, they submit that the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner have to be enquired into, only during the investigation and trial of the offence and that no interference is called for at this stage.

( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent also filed his counter-affidavit. He has stated that he has realized that the incident which gave rise to submission of a complaint was unfortunate and the matter since been settled between himself and the petitioner.

( 5 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home and sri T. V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

( 6 ) IN view of the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, ordinarily, this Court need not go further to decide as to whether the F. I. R. was liable to be quashed or not. However, since what is involved is quashing of F. I. R. for an offence under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act, which is not compoundable, the adjudication of the matter does not depend on the version presented by the 3rd respondent, irrespective of the justification thereof.

( 7 ) IT is settled principle of law that this court can interfere with the F. I. R. , if only a plain reading of the same does not disclose of an offence. The truth or otherwise of the allegations contained therein can never constitute the subject-matter of such adjudication. Therefore, it is to be proceeded as though the entire allegations contained in f. I. R. in question, are true.

( 8 ) THE main grounds of attack advanped by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that mere utterances in the name of Caste by themselves would not attract the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, unless such utterances were made in any place within public view . According to him, even the complaint of the 3rd respondent discloses that the so-c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document