Criminal Petition No.943I of 2009 is filed by A1 to A4, whereas Criminal Petition No.9227 of 2009 is filed by the de facto complainant in PRC No.37 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.

2. Heard Sri Purnachandra Reddy representing Smt. D. Sangeetha Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners A1 to A4 in Crl. P No. 9431 of 2009, Sri D. Ramalillgaswamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-de facto complainant in Criminal Petition No.9227 of 2009 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. The short facts leading to the filing of these two criminal petitions are that the de facto complainant lodged a report against the accused with the Police Pentapadu alleging that on 18.3.2008 at about 11:00 a.m., A1 to A4 beat Lws. 1 and 2 with knives, caused bleeding injuries, restrained them entering into the fields and rice mill, damaged the furniture in the rice mill and the car of LW2 and also that they abused LW1 in the name of his caste. On the strength of the said report, the Station House Officer, Pentapadu Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 40 of 2008. LW1 however alleging that the police have not been properly investigating into the offence filed a private complaint in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem against the petitioners-A1 to A4. The said complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr. PC for investigation and filing final report.

4. While the matter was under investigation, the petitioners-accused filed Criminal Petition No.2061 of 2009 before this Court to quash the investigation pending with the police. In the said criminal petition, this Court passed an order granting stay of arrest of the accused but directed the investigation to go on. However, subsequently the police after investigating into the offence filed charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, under Sections 324, 506(2), 341, 342, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 read with 34 IPC. Subsequent to the filing of the charge-sheet, Criminal Petition No.2061 of 2009 was dismissed as it became infructuous.

5. After filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused. The accused, who received the summons have been attending the Court regularly in PRC No.37 of 2009. While so, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed a petition before the learned Magistrate on 30.10.2009 under Section. 204 Cr. PC stating inter alia that the learned Magistrate ought to have issued non-bailable warrants against the accused instead of issuing summons. By allowing the application, the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against the accused and now the non-bailable warrants are pending execution.

6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid events, the accused filed Criminal Petition No.9431 of 2009 to cancel the non-bailable warrants and issue a direction to the Magistrate to accept the bail bonds of the accused and the sureties and commit the case to the Special Court for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989. Whereas the de facto complainant filed Criminal Petition No.9227 of 2009 to issue a direction to the learned Magistrate to take the accused into custody by executing the non-bailable warrants issued against them and remand them to judicial custody subject to the orders of bail, if any, obtained by the accused.

7. Thus, according to the accused, since the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, after filing of the charge-sheet exercised his jurisdiction to issue summons and in obedience thereof the accused have been attending the Court regularly, issuance of non-bailable warrants against them on the petition filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor is illegal.

8. On the