IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a second complaint relating to the same incident is not prohibited under the Code, and if it presents a different version with additional allegations, it can be legally maintainable and subject to investigation.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 seeking to quash of proceedings in Crime No.182 of 2015 of J.R.Puram Police Station, Srikakulam District, for the offence under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 509 read with 149 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) (xi) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act.

2. Heard Sri K.Ratna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and Dr.Challa Srinivasa Reddy learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. On 17/11/2015 she came to J.R.Puram Police Station and presented a report alleging that on 23/9/2015 at about 8.30 a.m., she along with her mother and one Ramanamma went to the Neem Tree Centre of their village after knowing the fact that their Ex-Sarpanch by name Pasapu Ramadasu/A.1 came to their village, and enquired about the allotment of houses in the colony. By that time, A.2 to A.9 were also present there. When she asked about the allotment of houses in the colony, A.1 and A.9 raised their voice and abused her in the name of her caste (Mala), pushed her with hands by touching her chest and beat her due to which, she became unconscious. Her sister-in-law, namely, Nagamani took her to Government Hospital, Srikakulam, in 108 Ambulance for treatment. She got body pains and due to fear of the incident, she could not go to her village and stayed at her uncle's house at Komilly Village, Vizianagaram District to take rest. Thereafter, she came to know that the Police came to the Village and enquired about the incident. On the basis of the said report, a case in Crime No.182 of 2015 was registered in J.R.Puram Police Station, Srikakulam District for the offence under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 509 read with 149 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (PoA) Act and investigation is reported pending. Challenging the registration of crime, the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 filed the present Criminal Petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings in the view of the grounds viz., (i) registration of the second complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent/de facto complaint in respect of the act or omission on the part of an individual or individuals, which constitute the alleged offence, is not legally sustainable, (ii) there is an abnormal delay in lodging the second complaint by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. He would further submit that the first complaint dtd. 23/9/2015 submitted by K.Chinnarao on which date the alleged incident occurred and registered FIR in Crime No.182 of 2015. Due to the political influence, 2nd respondent/de facto complainant came forward and presented another complaint on 17/11/2015 for the same incident with an abnormal delay and the SHO concerned rounded off the earlier Sec. of Law noted in the FIR and added some more Ss. under IPC and SCs and STs Act, which clearly go to show that it is clearly motivated under political influence to drag the petitioners into the criminal proceedings with an intention to harass them. Therefore, he prays to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 in the above crime.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed on the ground that there is no bar to register a second complaint for the same crime in the facts and circumstances of a particular case if it so warrants and it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining a second complaint even on the same facts as the matter requires investigation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Further, he would submit that there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 that there are no allegations against them with regard to the commission of the offence. Theref