even if the entire version of the revision petitioner is believed to be true, except his friends, nobody was present in the chambers at the time of the incident. If any utterances are made by the accused in the chambers which is a closed place to which nobody has access except with the permission of the accused, it cannot be said that the offence was committed in a place within public view.-Even if it is considered that any such utterances are made by the first respondent, it cannot be said that they were made in a place within public view. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned Special Judge the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Act is not attracted. The learned Special Judge gave sufficient and valid reasons for holding that no prima facie case is made out and no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is attracted. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court which ultimately resulted in discharging the first respondent of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act do not call for any interference in this revision case and therefore, they are affirmed holding that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not attracted.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO      
Crl.R.C.No. 1249 of 2004 AND Crl.R.C.No. 1250 of 2004

23.01.2012

V.Sudhakar

R.Ram MohanRao and another  

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Ram Reddy

 Counsel for the first respondent :Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy
^ Counsel for the second respondent : Public Prosecutor

? Cases referred:
1. 2008(2) ALD (Crl.) 882 (SC)
2. (2008) 12 SCC 531
3. 2000(5) ALT 602

COMMON JUDGMENT:      

             Crl.R.C.No.1249 of 2004 arises out of Crl.M.P.No.180 of 2004 in
S.C.No.24 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District.

2.        Crl.R.C.No.1250 of 2004 arises out of Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2004 in
S.C.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
District.

3.        I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/complainant, first respondent/accused and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor representing the State/second respondent.

4.            The brief facts giving rise for filing the criminal revision cases
are that the wife of the revisionist Smt.T.Bazaramma was working as Bill
Collector in Gram Panchayat, Uppal Kalan Municipality was having some disputes
with the then Municipal Commissioner G.Ram Narayana Reddy and also some    
municipal staff which led to departmental action against her by withholding
increments, future promotion, recovery of some amounts and surrendering her
services to the Controller of Commissioner and Director of Municipal
Administration to post her in any other municipality preceded by suspension from
services. She approached the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal which considered
her case and issued a direction to the Commissioner Uppal Kalan Municipality to
continue her in the same office.  When the said orders of the A.P.A.T. were not
implemented, she had to approach this Court and obtained an order in
W.P.No.28148 of 1998 dated 09.10.1998 which order was also not implemented by  
the Municipal authorities.  Thereafter, she filed contempt cases vide C.C.No.818
of 1999 and C.C.No. 189 of 2000.  Ultimately she was transferred from
Sherilingampally and posed to Uppal Kalan Municipality by the Commissioner and
Director of Municipal Administration.

5.         The incident in the case arose on the day when Smt.T.Bazaramma
approached the first respondent along with the revisionist who is her husband on
08.011.1999 to submit a joining report and to join duty.  The revisionist who
accompanied her enquired with first respondent and asked about the settlement of
arrears due to his wife which were to be paid to her basing on the directions of
this Court.  Thereafter, it is said that the first respondent without any
provocation from the revisionist suddenly grew wild, abused him in un-
parliamentary language by naming his caste in the presence of Dr.K.Muralidhara
Reddy and G.Ashok Reddy.  

6.          In regard to the said incident, the revisionist gave a report to the
police alleging that the first respondent abused him in his caste name and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the
Act').  The Police, Uppal on receiving the said report registered a case in
Crime No.361 of 1999 on 11.11.1999.  The first respondent's version is that at
the time when the petitioner's wife Smt. Bazaramma submitted joining report,
though he accepted the same and permitted her to join duty, the petitioner
picked up unnecessary quarrel, intimidated him and obstructed him from
discharging his public functions. Alleging as such, he gave a report to Uppal
police and basing on his report, a case in Crime No.367 of 1999 under Sections
186 and 506 IPC was registered against the petitioner.  The police investigated
into both the reports, referred the case registered pursuant to the report of
the revision petitioner as false, but filed the charge sheet against the
revision petitioner basing on the report lodged by the first respondent.  In the
said case, N.B.Ws. were also issued against the revision petitioner on the
ground that he was absconding.  Further development in this case is that the
revision petitioner gave another report against the first respondent alleging
that the institution of the case basing on the report of the first respondent
without any basis amounted to an offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(viii)
and (ix) of the Act, 1989 and accordingly he filed a private complaint before
the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, East and North, Ranga Reddy
District.  Subsequently, the said case was transferred to Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, West and South, Ranga Reddy District.  The learned
Magistrate committed the case to the Special Judge under SCs. & STs. (POA), Act-
cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the learned Additional
Sessions Judge took the case on file vide S.C.No.27 of 2003.  Further, it
requires to be noticed that in protest of referring the case in Crime No.361 of
1999, the revision petitioner also filed a private complaint which was taken on
file and was numbered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as S.C.No.24 of
2004.

7.       While both the cases were pending, the first respondent filed two
petitions under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge him on the ground that no prima
facie case had been made out and that he being a public servant, no case can be
filed against him without there being a sanction from the competent authority as
required under Section 197 Cr.P.C.  The discharge petition in S.C.No.24 of 2004
is numbered as Crl.M.P.No.180 of 2004 and the discharge petition in S.C.No.27 of
2003 is numbered as Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2004.

8.         Learned Additional Sessions Judge on hearing both sides allowed the
discharge petitions holding that no prima facie case has been made out against
the first respondent.  Insofar as Crl.M.P.No.180 of 2004, the learned Special
Judge though held that no prima facie case is made out against the first
respondent, was of the view that sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
is not necessary to prosecute the first respondent though he is a public servant
since abusing the revision petitioner in the name of his caste cannot be said to
be part of his functions. However, the learned Special Judge in Crl.M.P.No.16 of
2004 in S.C.No.27 of 2003 specifically held that since the first respondent
filed the complaint on the ground that the revision petitioner deterred him from
discharging his official duties and also prevented him to discharge his
functions, any offence allegedly committed in that connection shall be regarded
as part of his public duties and therefore sanction to prosecute him as required
under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary and the complaint is not maintainable
without there being any such sanction from the competent authority.  The fact
however remains that the learned Special Judge allowed both the discharge
petitions considering that no prima facie offence alleged in both the cases is
made out and therefore, the first respondent is entitled for discharge.

9.           Now the point for determination in both the revision cases is as to
whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the orders of discharge
passed by the Special Judge in both the cases.

10.         Admittedly the incidents alleged, took place in the chambers of the
first respondent who is the Commissioner of Uppal Municipality.  Since for the
first time Smt.Bazaramma approached the first respondent along with her husband
to submit joining report, the version of the first respondent that she was a
stranger to him can be accepted even though it is the contention of the revision
petitioner that in view of the long standing disputes, Smt.Bazaramma having with
the then Municipal Commissioner and the municipal staff, in view of various
proceedings before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and this Court, the first
respondent cannot plead that he on the date of the alleged incidents did not
know Smt.Bazaramma and her social status.  The contention of the revision
petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that several employees were
working in Uppal Municipality, the first respondent who assumed charge few
months prior to the revision petitioner's wife submitting joining report, cannot
be attributed with the knowledge about the social status of the revision
petitioner's wife.

11.       Insofar as the allegation in regard to the first respondent abusing
the revision petitioner in his caste name, the learned Special Judge took the
view that since the incident took place in the chambers of the first respondent
which is a closed one to the public will not be having access without the
permission of the first respondent and also no outsiders were present at the
time of alleged incidents, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not
attracted.  The learned Special Judge was of the further view that the revision
petitioner being a stranger to first respondent, he cannot be attributed with
the knowledge of her social status i.e. to which he belongs and therefore, it is
highly difficult to believe that the first respondent abused the revision
petitioner in his caste name.
12.        To examine the correctness and legality of the order passed by the
learned Special Judge, it is necessary to go through some of the following
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent:

1) In SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE THROUGH STANDING COUNSEL (SUPREME                  
COURT)1, the Supreme Court held as follows:

"The High Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in a writ petition to
quash the proceedings has to see whether on a perusal of FIR, treating
allegations to be correct, a criminal offence prima facie made out or not or
whether there is any statutory bar, at this stage the correctness or otherwise
of the allegations in the FIR has not to be seen by the High Court, and that
will be seen at the trial.  However, the Supreme Court drew a distinction
between expression public view and public place and held that the Court must not
therefore confuse the expression 'place within public view' with the expression
'public place', a place can be a private place but yet within the public view,
on the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned
or leased by the government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon
sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private
bodies."

(2)         Similarly in GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS2          
the Supreme Court referring to it's several earlier judgments held that the
complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-acc used was not a member
of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he was intentionally insulted or
intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public
view and when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint,
then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face
the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to
abuse of process of law.

 (3)          In BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. MUMBAI AND OTHERS v. UNION OF            
INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS AND OTHERS3  dealing with the            
quashing of FIR relating to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA)
Act, 1989 it was held as follows:

"Admittedly in the instant case the alleged            offence has taken place
in the chambers of the officers where there was no public and which was not
within the public view, it does not even the contention of the 4th respondent
that the events were viewed by the public on the days mentioned by him in the
complaint.  In such a situation, it would be very difficult for this Court to
conclude that even though public did not view the event, yet, it has to be
treated as a offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

        The intention of the Parliament is very clear
that this   insult or intimidation should have been caused in a place within the
public view.  If it is committed in any place which is not within the public
view, it would not be treated as an offence.  Otherwise, the Parliament could
have omitted the words within the public view."

13.            Turning to the facts of the present case, the revision petitioner
cited in the complaint only one witness Muralidhar Reddy as the person present
at the time of the incident.  But, he examined before the learned Magistrate two
persons as eyewitnesses, they are, Muralidhar Reddy and Ashok Reddy.  Even as
per the evidence of the second witness for the complainant, the said witness
himself does not know the caste of the revision petitioner-complainant, though
he claims to be his friend.  Therefore, the question of the first respondent who
is altogether stranger to the revision petitioner knowing about the caste of the
revision petitioner does not arise. In any event, even if the entire version of
the revision petitioner is believed to be true, except his friends, nobody was
present in the chambers at the time of the incident. If any utterances are made
by the accused in the chambers which is a closed place to which nobody has
access except with the permission of the accused, it cannot be said that the
offence was committed in a place within public view.  The allegation having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, seems to be prima facie
false.  Even if it is considered that any such utterances are made by the first
respondent, it cannot be said that they were made in a place within public view.
Therefore, as rightly held by the learned Special Judge the offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of Act is not attracted.  The learned Special Judge gave
sufficient and valid reasons for holding that no prima facie case is made out
and no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is attracted.  The findings
recorded by the learned trial Court which ultimately resulted in discharging the
first respondent of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act do
not call for any interference in this revision case and therefore, they are
affirmed holding that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not
attracted.

14.         Insofar as the other case is concerned, the revision petitioner
filed a private complaint against the first respondent alleging that he gave a
report to the Police Uppal alleging that when he demanded the first respondent
to pay his wife the arrears of salary, sanction the increments for the past 12
years, the complainant grew wild and deterred and obstructed him in discharging
his official duties.  Alleging as such, he gave a report against the first
respondent to the police basing on which a case in Crime No.367 of 1999 was
registered and thereafter, a charge sheet also came to be filed against the
revision petitioner.  The police have filed the charge sheet for the offence
under Section 186 r/w 506 IPC and the said case is pending against the revision
petitioner as CC No.464 of 2000 before the Special Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

15.        The revision petitioner referring to the said case filed against him
on the report given by the first respondent, filed another private complaint
against the first respondent and several others alleging that a false accusation
was made against him as afore-stated and that the first respondent and other
accused are liable for the offences under Section 3(1)(viii) and (ix) and 3(1(x)
of SCs. and STs. (POA) Act.  The learned Magistrate upon recording the evidence
adduced by the revision petitioner took the cases on file against the first
respondent and committed the cases to the Court of Special Judge and the same is
now pending as SC No.27 of 2003.  In the said cases, the discharge petition was
filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by the first respondent. Crl.M.P.No. 16 of 2004
was allowed and he was discharged of the said offence alleged under Section
3(1)(viii) (ix) and 3(2)(viii) of the Act.

16.         As to the question whether the said order of discharge requires any
interference in these revision cases, it requires to be noticed that the case
was still pending before the learned Special Judge and absolutely there was no
material to show that the first respondent falsely or maliciously implicated the
revision petitioner in a false case alleging that the revision petitioner
deterred him and obstructed him from discharging his official duties.  The
police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the revision
petitioner and therefore, according to the investigating agency the allegation
levelled against the revision petitioner by the first respondent is true.  As
rightly held by the learned Special Judge the revision petitioner is facing
trial in the said cases which is still pending and in the absence of any clear
verdict by the court before which the said case is pending, it is quite
premature to hold that the allegation levelled against the revision petitioner
it is false.  Therefore, without there being any prima facie material if the
first respondent is made to face another criminal charge basing on the private
complaint filed by the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.  The
learned Special Judge is also perfectly right and justified in holding that
since the offence alleged in the present case is committed in discharge of the
public duties of the first respondent as a public servant, the sanction to
prosecute him for the offence under Section 3(1)(viii) and (ix) r/w 3(1)(x) of
the Act is must and without obtaining any such sanction, if the prosecution is
allowed to continue, it is an abuse of process of law.  The order of discharge
passed by the learned Special Judge, therefore does not call for any
interference in this revision case.

17.      For the foregoing reasons, both the revision cases are dismissed
affirming the orders of discharge passed by the learned Special Judge.
________________  
R.KANTHA RAO,J  
Date:23-01-2012