( 1 ) ON 15-4-2002, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent against the petitioners. The said complaint was registered as a crime in FIR No. 10 of 2002, dated 15-4-2002 of Gannavaram Police station, East Godavari District. In the complaint, the 2nd respondent alleged that the petitioners committed an offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 (for short the Act ) by abusing him and saying that he belonged to a low caste. The petitioners filed the instant writ petition seeking an appropriate writ, to declare FIR no. 10 of 2002 on the file of Gannavaram police Station, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same. Be it noted that the petitioners in effect are seeking a direction to quash the FIR which was registered at the instance of 2nd respondent.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that 2nd respondent does not belong to Scheduled tribe community, but belongs to adi andhra , a Christian community, falling under Group c of the notified Backward classes. The 2nd respondent filed nomination to the office of Sarpanch of Nellipudi Gram panchayat, East Godavari District, claiming himself to be a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners and other villagers gave a complaint to the District Collector, East godavari, stating that 2nd respondent is not eligible to contest the office of Sarpanch because he does not belong to Scheduled tribe, but in vain. In that connection, the brother of the 6th petitioner also filed a writ petition, being W. P. No. 2547 of 2002, and this court disposed of the same directing the authorities to consider the representation given by the petitioner and others. Pursuant to such directions, the project Officer, Integrated Tribal development Agency, Rampachodavarm,. issued notice dated 15-2-2002 to the petitioner, through the Mandal Revenue officer, Gangavaram, and directed the mandal Revenue Officer, Gangavaram, to conduct an enquiry into the social status of 2nd respondent. Challenging the said notice, the 2nd respondent filed W. P. No. 3647 of 2002, which was dismissed.

( 3 ) IN the light of the afore-mentioned averments, the petitioners allege that the FIR registered by the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent is not proper, and therefore, any investigation into the complaint made by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners or prosecution of the petitioners in pursuance of the said complaint, under the Act, would amount to abuse of the process of the court.

( 4 ) SRI B. Bhaskara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent does not belong to Scheduled tribe community, and therefore, any complaintmadeby him, cannotbe registered under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Placing reliance upon certain documents like School transfer Certificate and Community certificate of the 2nd respondent, and also the Voters list of Nellipudi Gram Panchayat, the learned counsel submitted that the very registration of the FIR against the petitioners is bad and would amount to abuse of the process of court for the 2nd respondent cannot derive any protection under the Act.

( 5 ) SRI Srimannarayana, the learned assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that under Article 226 of the constitution of India, an FIR cannot ordinarily be quashed, especially when there are sufficient indications in the FIR that an offence has been committed. He further submitted that when there are ingredients of an offence in the complaint, this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interdict the investigation, and all the questions raised for valid defence have to await the regular criminal trial. In support of his proposition, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the apex court in M/s. Pepsi foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and mahavir Prashad Gupta v. State of NCT of delhi.

( 6 ) HA

Click Here to Read the rest of this document