Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. - (1.)This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A 1 under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 25 of 2015 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor (Telangana) for the State before notice to respondent No. 2 and before admission. Perused the material on record.
(2.)The petitioner is A1 among two accused of crime No. 628 of 2014 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 354, 354(D), 506, 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). It is after investigation, the police filed charge sheet so far as the petitioner/A 1 is concerned except for the offence under Sec. 3(i)(ii) of the Act, the other offences mentioned in the F.I.R. So far as A2 is concerned including Sec. 3(i)(ii) of the Act. Undisputedly, A1 belongs to Scheduled caste, as can be seen from the charge sheet. In fact, A1 and A2 moved for anticipatory bail and this Court while holding Crl.P. Nos. 8411 and 8422 of 2014 dated 28.07.2014 held that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has no application so far as Ali is concerned and anticipatory bail is maintainable and however by finding not a case granting anticipatory bail given liberty to surrender and move for regular bail. Even from the very report of the de facto complainant, though there is whisper in saying the accused along with his wife brought liquor bottles and biryani in the car into his house and they started drinking and forced him to consume, there is nothing to say that they forcibly administered. What he says was, while he was consuming appears voluntarily, there is alleged outrage of modesty of his wife. Even there from Sec. 3(i) or (ii) has no application to the facts. Once that is the case, the alleged occurrence dated 29.06.2014 leave about any explanation for the delay in reporting the occurrence undisputedly on 05.07.2014. The offence punishable under Ss. 354, 354 -D and 506 r/w. 34 I.P.C. so far as accused concerned are triable by the Magistrate. Thus, there are no grounds to commit the case to the Court of Sessions covered by P.R.C. No. 25 of 2015 on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad.
(3.)Now, it is one of the contentions further by the learned counsel for the petitioner/A 1 that in addition to what is referred supra of no case to be tried by the Court of Sessions to commit by the learned Magistrate, in impugning the PRC proceedings pending before Magistrate, that there is delay in reporting the occurrence.