ORDER :

(Lalitha Kanneganti, J.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside the order dated 08.04.2021 in Crl.M.P. No. 101 of 2019 in S.C. No. 110 of 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereby the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge the petitioners from the case, was dismissed.

2. The petitioners before this Court are A4 and A5 in crime No. 67 of 2017 of Buchireddypalem Police Station, Nellore District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-B, 323, 290 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 2(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, which was subsequently numbered as S.C. 110 of 2017.

3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that a report was lodged alleging that Malini, Vanaja and Sailamma, under whom the complainant and two others i.e. LWs. 2 and 3 are working as maids, and all the accused reside in their respective portions in the same building. While things stood thus, on 10.03.2017 when the complainant was bringing coffee in a flask as per the instructions of Malini, the accused came there, and LWs 2 and 3 abused the complainant in the name of caste and misbehaved with the complainant by pulling her saree and blouse, which was also witnessed by passersby. Basing on the said complaint the above crime was registered.

4. Subsequent to registration of the crime, investigation revealed that A1 was not involved in the crime and hence, he was not charge sheeted. Thereafter, A2 to A5 approached the Court below with a prayer to discharge them from the case, but the same was dismissed observing that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioners will be decided during trial. Aggrieved by the same, A4 and A5 are before this Court by way of this revision.

5. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused Nos. 4 and 5 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below failed to appreciate that no grounds are made out in the charge sheet or in the statement of LW. 1/victim and hence, there is no ground to frame charges against the petitioners/A4 and A5. He submits that the Court below failed to appreciate that the entire allegations are against A-1 and as per the investigation, A-1 was not present at the time of alleged offence and he was present in the High Court on 10.03.2017 from 10:28 a.m., to 10:31 a.m., i.e. on the alleged date of offence, which is evident from CC Camera footage obtained from the Registrar (Protocol), High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana at Hyderabad, as such, he was not charge sheeted and categorically stated that A-1 was falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the above, it is clear that other accused were also falsely implicated. He submits that the Court below further failed to appreciate that when once the allegations against A-1 who was not present at the scene of offence as per the investigation, entire version of the complainant itself is proved to be false and on this ground alone, the petitioners are liable to be discharged. He submits that this Court in W.P. No. 11140 of 2017 ordered not to arrest accused Nos. 3 and 4. Hence, he prays to discharge the petitioners from the case.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the discharge petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable under law. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer found prima facie case from the evidence of LWs. 1 to 3 and filed charge sheet.

8. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the record. As per the report, statements of LWs. 1 to 3 and also 164 sta