Judgment : 1. The petitioners are A.1 and A.2. They seek for the quashment of P.R.C.No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali. The P.R.C was under Section 323 I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that on an incident that allegedly occurred on 16.10.2006 the second respondent who is the de facto complainant, lodged a complaint with Tekkali Police Station and that the same was registered as F.I.R in Crime No.158 of 2006. After due investigation, police filed a final report on 04.12.2006 considering that the allegations were false and that the case deserves to be referred as false. While so, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint on 03.10.2008, like a protest petition, alleging the same facts on which the earlier complaint was lodged. It may be noticed that the private complaint is not with reference to a separate offence against the same accused, but for the same offence in respect of which Crime No.158 of 2006 was registered as F.I.R. 3. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioners contended that while the complaint was referred as false way back on 04.12.2006, the second respondent chose to file the present complaint on 03.10.2008 with the same allegations with a view to extract money from the accused by way of blackmail. He also referred to various false complaints lodged by the second respondent. He referred to as many as 10 such complaints including the present complaint in Crime No.158 of 2006 as serial no.3 in the list of false cases filed by the second respondent. 4. I agree with the contention of Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent, that merely because police referred the cases as false, it does not follow that the present private complaint is false and is liable to be quashed. The merits of the present complaint deserve to be examined on its own strength. 5. As already referred to, the allegations in the private complaint and the allegations in the complaint leading to filing of F.I.R in Crime No.158 of 2006 are one and the same. It is the case of the second respondent that A.1 and A.2 abused the second respondent with reference to her community. 5. As already referred to, the allegations in the private complaint and the allegations in the complaint leading to filing of F.I.R in Crime No.158 of 2006 are one and the same. It is the case of the second respondent that A.1 and A.2 abused the second respondent with reference to her community. Incidentally, the second respondent is a member of the Scheduled Caste. Alleging that the petitioners referred to the community of the second respondent and abused her with reference to her community, the present complaint is laid under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 6. Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioners are worth trying before the committal Court and before the Sessions Court, in the event the case is committed to the Court of Sessions. I am satisfied that in the absence of contrary evidence, the petitioners would be liable for punishment under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to permit the committal Court to proceed with the case and decide whether to commit the case to Sessions Court or otherwise. 7. At the same time, there are two factors which need to be taken note of. Where the report in Crime No.158 of 2006 was referred to by the police as false on 04.12.2006, the present private complaint was filed as late as on 03.10.2008, i.e. nearly two years after the reference of the earlier complaint. No special reasons had been assigned by the second respondent for the delay in filing the private complaint. This is one of the two factors. 8. The other factor is that the second respondent lodged as many as 10 complaints, which are listed and several other complaints. The complaints were found to be false by police, after due investigation. Yet another circumstance is that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Caste Welfare Association, Tekkali, considered that the second respondent is a vexatious litigant making complaints against various persons taking advantage of her community. 9. In view of these circumstances, although a prima facie case is made out, I consider that it is a fit case where the presence of the accused-petitioners deserves to be dispensed with before the committal Court and before the Sessions Court, in the event the committal Court considers it appropriate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. 9. In view of these circumstances, although a prima facie case is made out, I consider that it is a fit case where the presence of the accused-petitioners deserves to be dispensed with before the committal Court and before the Sessions Court, in the event the committal Court considers it appropriate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. I also consider it appropriate that this is not a fit case in this backdrop for the arrest of the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, this petition for the quashment of P.R.C.No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali is dismissed. It is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested without prior permission of the committal Court or the Sessions Court, as the case may be. Such permission shall be accorded by the committal Court or the Sessions Court in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be recorded by it. The presence of the petitioners before the committal Court and in the event the case is committed to the Sessions Court, before the Sessions Court, is dispensed with, except on the special circumstances on which the committal Court and the Sessions Court may direct the appearance of the petitioners before the Court such as for reading out the orders before the committal Court and for framing of the charges, if any, before the Sessions Court and such similar circumstances. Miscellaneous petition pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall stand closed.