"within public view" which means the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted.= A reading of Section 3 shows that two kinds of insults against the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are made punishable - one as defined under sub-section (ii) and the other as defined under sub-section (x) of the said section. A combined reading of the two sub-sections shows that under section (ii) insult can be caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood, and to cause such insult, the dumping of excreta etc. need not necessarily be done in the presence of the person insulted and whereas under sub-section (x) insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view of the expression "in any place within public view". The words "within public view", in my opinion, are referable only to the person insulted and not to the person who insulted him as the said expression is conspicuously absent in sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of Act 3/1989. By avoiding to use the expression "within public view" in sub-section (ii), the Legislature, I feel, has created two different kinds of offences an insult caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, even in his absence, by dumping excreta etc. in his premises or neighbourhood and an insult by words caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes "within public view" which means at the time of the alleged insult the person insulted must be present as the expression "within public view" indicates or otherwise the Legislature would have avoided the use of the said expression which it avoided in sub- section (ii) or would have used the expression "in any public place". 13. Insult contemplated under sub-section (ii) is different from the insult contemplated under sub-section (x) as in the former a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes gets insulted by the physical act and whereas is the latter he gets insulted in public view by the words uttered by the wrongdoer for which he must be present at the place.= this is a fit case to quash the proceedings for two reasons viz., a) the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners under Section 3 (1) (x) of the S.C & S.T (PoA) Act; and b) entrustment of investigation to the police in Cr.No.242 of 2011 is nothing short of abuse of process of law. Hence the proceedings in Crime No.242 of 2011 of Nagarampalem P.S deserve to be quashed.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY        

CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.8269  OF 2011 and batch    

01-08-2014

1.N.V. Ramana Raju2.B. Venkatesulu...PETITIONERS    

The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P, Hyderabad and 3
others.RESPONDENTS    

Counsel for Petitioners : Sri N. Ashwani Kumar

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Addl. Public Prosecutor
 Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri Ravi Kumar Mathangi

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred

  (2011) 11 SCC 259
2 (2011) 11 SCC 258
3 (2000) 12 SCC 531
4 2012 (1) ALT (Crl.) 240 (A.P)
5 AIR 1960 SC 866
6 AIR 1992 SC 604
7 (1976) 3 SCC 736
8 (2007) 12 SCC 1


THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY        
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8269 and 9066 OF 2011    

COMMON ORDER:    
1       These two criminal petitions are filed (Crl.P.No.8269 of 2011 by
A1 and A2, and Crl.P.No.9066 of 2011 by A3 and A4) under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings Cr.No.242 of 2011 of
Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District.
2       Since the point involved in both the petitions is one and the
same, I am inclined to dispose of these two petitions by this common
order.
3       The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is two
fold, viz., 1) Registration of Crime No.242 of 2011 against the
petitioners under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not legally
sustainable; and 2) the allegations made in the complaint do not
constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the
petitioners.  Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the allegations made in the complaint constitute the
alleged offence.  The contention of learned counsel for fourth
respondent is that the petitioners have intentionally insulted and
humiliated Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar by delaying promotion to him as he
belongs to Scheduled Caste community.
4       On 22.08.2011, the fourth respondent submitted a complaint to
the Station House Officer, Nagarampalem Police Station who in turn
registered a case in Cr.No.242 of 2011 under section 3 (1) (x) of S.C. &
S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioners.  The fourth
respondent submitted the complaint shouldering the responsibility of
protecting the interest of the employees belonging to the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. As per the allegations made in
the complaint, the petitioners herein denied promotion to Dr.Y.Kiran
Kumar in time, thereby insulted and humiliated him as he belongs to
Scheduled Caste community.  
5       Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar joined as Assistant Civil Surgeon in
Government General Hospital, Guntur on 26.12.1991.  He was
promoted as Assistant Professor and joined as such on 06.04.1994 in
the same college. On 15.09.2003, the screening committee approved
and recommended the name of Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar to the post of
Associate Professor and accordingly he was promoted on 06.8.2004.
While he was working as Associate Professor, he was reverted to the
post of Assistant Professor, as per Proc.Rc.No.34388/E1.A/04, dated
9.6.2005 issued by the then Director of Medical Education.  Aggrieved
by his reversion, Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar filed O.A.No.7037 of 2007 on the
file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereafter,
APAT), challenging the proceedings dated 09.06.2005.  The said O.A.
was allowed by APAT by its order dated 25.04.2006 by setting aside
the Proc. Rc.No.34388/E1.A/04, dated 09.06.2005. Accordingly,
Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar was again promoted as Associate Professor on
05.9.2006.  Alleging that he was not properly placed in the seniority
list, Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar filed O.A.No.1777 of 2009 questioning the
proceedings in Rc.No.22163/E-1-A/2006, dated 05.9.2006
whereunder he was promoted.  The APAT partly allowed O.A.No.1777  
of 2009 by its order dated 13.12.2009 and further held that
promotion of Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar shall be deemed to be from 06.8.2004
i.e., the date on which he was reverted from the post of Associate
Professor.  In the order, the respondents therein were directed to
prepare seniority list and finalise the same by circulation, and even
thereafter if Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar had any grievance, he can approach
the respondents.
6               In the above factual background, let me consider the allegations
made in the complaint.  It should be remembered that the complaint
was given to the Police by the president of Indian Dalith Employees
Association.  It is alleged in the complaint that Accused Nos.1, 3 and
4 were responsible for injustice caused to Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar for
getting promotion in 2004.  Accused No.2 harassed Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar
without considering his representations for about eight (8) years i.e.
till his (A2s) retirement on 31.07.2011.  The substance of the
complaint is that Dr. Y. Kiran Kumar could not get promotion in time
because the petitioners intentionally delayed the promotion to Dr.Y.
Kiran Kumar as he belongs to Scheduled Caste community.  
7               As per Section 2(a) of the Act, atrocity means an offence
punishable under Section 3.  According to Oxford English Reference
Dictionary, atrocity means an extremely wicked cruel act especially
one involved physical violence or injury. As per the provisions of the
Act, an act or omission on the part of a person, who does not belong
to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, will fall within the definition
of atrocity if the same is punishable under Section 3.
8       In the instant case, the crime has been registered under Section
3 (1) (x) of S.C. & S.T (PoA) Act. The crucial question that falls for
consideration is whether the alleged act of the petitioners will fall
within the ambit of Section 3 of the said Act. Section 3 of the Act
reads as under:

Section 3 - Punishments for offences of atrocities

(1) Whoever, not being a member or a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, --
(i) forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious
substance;
(ii) acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance
to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or
any other obnoxious substance in his premises or
neighbourhood;
(iii) forcibly removes clothes from the person of
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
parades him naked or with painted face or body or
commits any similar act which is derogatory to human
dignity;
(iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by,
or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to
be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him
transferred;
(v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or
interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land,
premises or water;
(vi) compels or entices a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe to do 'begar' or other similar forms
of forced or bonded labour other than any compulsory
service for public purposes imposed by Government;
(vii) forces or intimidates a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote to a
particular candidate or to vote in a manner other than
that provided by law;
(viii) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or
criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(ix) gives any false or frivolous information to any public
servant, and thereby causes such public servant to
use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to
dishonour or outrage her modesty;
(xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a woman
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which
she would not have otherwise agreed;
(xiii) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir
or any other source ordinarily used by members of the
Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render
it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used;
(xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a
place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to
prevent him from using or having access to a place of
public resort to which other members of public or
any section thereof have a right to use or access to;
(xv) forces or causes a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other
place of residence,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than six months but which may extend to five years and
with fine.
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,--
(i) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled  
Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is capital by
the law for the time being in force shall be punished
with imprisonment for life and with fine; and if an
innocent member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe be convicted and executed in consequence of such
false or fabricated evidence, the person who gives
or fabricates such false evidence, shall be punished with
death;
(ii) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
cause, any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled  
Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is not capital
but punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven
years or upwards, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six
months but which may extend to seven years or
upwards and with fine;
(iii) commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance
intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause damage to any property belonging to
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend
to seven years and with fine;
(iv) commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance
intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause destruction of any building which is
ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a place for
human dwelling or as a place for custody of the property
by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with
fine;
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of
ten years or more against a person or property on the
ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to
such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment
for life and with fine;
(vi) knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence
has been committed under this Chapter, causes any
evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear
with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or
believes to be false, shall be punishable with the
punishment provided for that offence; or
(vii) being a public servant, commits any offence under
this section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than one year but which
may extend to the punishment provided for that offence.
9       A careful scanning of the provisions of Section 3 clearly
demonstrates that the disputes pertain to service matters do not fall
within the purview of Section 3.  Promotion to a Government
employee depends upon service conditions and relevant Rules and
Regulations issued from time to time besides his eligibility, seniority
coupled with entries made in Annual Confidential Records.  The
promotions from Assistant Civil Surgeon to Assistant Professor and
from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor are governed by
G.O.Ms.Nos.502 HM&FW (A1) Department, dated 13.9.2003 and    
G.O.Ms.No.154, HM&FW (A2) Department, dated 04.5.2002.  When    
promotions were given basing on the assessment made by the
screening committee, prima facie, the petitioners cannot be found
fault with.  Even assuming that the entire screening committee has
violated or deviated from the Rules in order to deny promotion to
Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar, then the entire screening committee has to be
found fault with.  It is not the case of the fourth respondent that
petitioners have violated certain Regulations, which were in force and
caused injustice to Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar in getting promotion in 2004.
The fact remains that Dr. Y.Kiran Kumar got promotion in the year
2004 itself. But due to the orders of the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal (APAT), he was reverted back.  It is a known
fact that the Government officials have to implement the orders of the
APAT. Otherwise, they have to face consequences.  In order to avoid
the legal consequences, the concerned officials have implemented the
orders of the APAT.  There is no specific averment in the complaint
that Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar was eligible to the post of Associate Professor
much prior to August 2004 and at that point of time the petitioners
alone are competent to promote Dr.Y.Kiran Kumar as Associate
Professor.
10      For better appreciation of the rival contentions, it is apt to
mention few admitted facts.
11      A perusal of the record reveals that G.O.Ms.No.154 HM&FW
(A2) Department, dated 04.5.2002 provides guidelines for fixing of
inter-se seniority in the feeder cadre to the post of Assistant Professor
and Associate Professors by following seniority vertically.  For one
reason or the other, the State Government has made necessary
amendments to G.O.Ms.No.154 and issued G.O.Ms.No.502, HM&FW        
(A1) Department, dated 13.9.2003.  As per G.O.Ms.No.502, the inter-
se seniority in the feeder cadre shall be fixed horizontally.  The
procedure to be followed for fixing of inter-se seniority in both the
G.Os is diametrically opposite.  In the year 2003, the screening
committee recommended and promoted Assistant Professors as  
Associate Professors.  The Assistant Professors who could not get
promotion, in view of the change of mode of fixing the inter-se
seniority, filed O.As before the APAT, challenging the legality of the
G.O.Ms.No.502 dated 13.09.2003.  The said O.As were allowed setting
aside the promotions recommended by the screening committee in the
year 2003.  Due to setting aside of the promotions recommended by
the screening committee, consequently it also effected the promotion
given to Dr. Y. Kiran Kumar and others.  Therefore, the material
placed before this Court clinchingly establishes the root cause for
setting aside of the promotion of Dr. Y. Kiran Kumar and delay in
giving promotion is due to change of the policy of the Government in
respect of inter-se seniority of Assistant Professors.
12              The crucial question that falls for consideration is whether the
allegations made in the complaint satisfy the basic ingredients of
Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Honble apex Court, in Asmathunnisa
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , observed as follows:
8. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on a judgment of the Kerala High Court in E. Krishnan
Nayanar v. Dr. M.A. Kuttappan & Others 1997 Crl. L.J. 2036. The
relevant paragraphs of this judgment are paras 12, 13 and 18. The
said paragraphs read as under:
"12. A reading of Section 3 shows that two kinds of insults against the
member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are made punishable - one   
as defined under sub-section (ii) and the other as defined under sub-section
(x) of the said section. A combined reading of the two sub-sections shows
that under section (ii) insult can be caused to a member of the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or 
any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood, and to
cause such insult, the dumping of excreta etc. need not necessarily be done
in the presence of the person insulted and whereas under sub-section (x)
insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view of
the expression "in any place within public view". The words "within public
view", in my opinion, are referable only to the person insulted and not to the
person who insulted him as the said expression is conspicuously absent in
sub-section (ii) of Section 3 of Act 3/1989. By avoiding to use the expression
"within public view" in sub-section (ii), the Legislature, I feel, has created
two different kinds of offences an insult caused to a member of the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes, even in his absence, by dumping excreta etc. in
his premises or neighbourhood and an insult by words caused to a member 
of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes "within public view" which
means at the time of the alleged insult the person insulted must be present
as the expression "within public view" indicates or otherwise the Legislature
would have avoided the use of the said expression which it avoided in sub-
section (ii) or would have used the expression "in any public place".
13. Insult contemplated under sub-section (ii) is different from the insult
contemplated under sub-section (x) as in the former a member of the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes gets insulted by the physical act and
whereas is the latter he gets insulted in public view by the words uttered by
the wrongdoer for which he must be present at the place.
xxx xxx xxx
18. As stated by me earlier the words used in sub- section (x) are not "in
public place", but "within public view" which means the public must view the
person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the
allegations under the said section gets attracted. In my view, the entire
allegations contained in the complaint even if taken to be true do not make
out any offence against the petitioner".
9. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in
any place but within public view", which means that the public must
view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no
offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the
person is not present.
13      Establishment of the following two conditions is sine qua non to
register the crime under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act in view of the ratio
laid down in the case cited supra.
i.      The person belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe being
insulted or intimidated in his presence in the name of the caste;
ii.     The incident must occur in any place within the public view.
14      As per the principle enunciated in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
A.P. , D. Santosh Reddy v. S.H.O. of Shamshabad P.S  and
U.Sadasivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh , if the allegations made in
the complaint or FIR do not satisfy the basic ingredients of Section 3
(1) (x) of the Act, the Court can quash the proceedings by exercising
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
15      It is an admitted fact that Dr. Y.Kiran Kumar did not lodge the
complaint against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have
committed the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.  The fourth
respondent  association lodged the complaint alleging as if the
petitioners have intentionally insulted Dr. Y. Kiran Kumar by delaying
his promotion on the sole ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste
community.  There is no allegation in the complaint that the
petitioners have intentionally insulted or intimidated Dr. Y. Kiran
Kumar in his presence in the name of his caste and in a place within
the public view.  Even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie
taken to be true and correct, the petitioners never insulted Dr. Y.
Kiran Kumar in the name of his caste so as to attract the alleged act
of the petitioners within the ambit of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act.  The
substance of the allegations made in the complaint is that the
petitioners herein denied promotions to Dr. Y. Kiran Kumar as he
belongs to Scheduled Caste community.  Even assuming but not  
admitting the allegations are true and correct, the same will not fall
under anyone of the provisions enumerated under Section 3 of the
Act. When the alleged act of the petitioners is not punishable under
Section 3 of the Act, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be
presumed that the alleged act of the petitioners will come under the
purview of atrocity as defined under section 2 (a) of the Act.
16      It is a settled principle of law that the Court can quash the
proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following circumstances.
i.      If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any
offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by
the accused,
ii.     If there is a legal bar for registration of the criminal case and
continuation of investigation against the accused.
iii.    Even if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie are taken
to be true and correct, the possibility of conviction of the
accused is too remote or bleak,
iv.     If the registration of the case and continuation of the
investigation would amount to abuse of process of law; and
v.      To secure the ends of justice.

17      The Apex Court in R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjab , held as
hereunder:
"Cases may also arise where the allegations in the F.I.R. or the
complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. In such cases, no
question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of
looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide
whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In this case it would
be legitimate to the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly
unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against
the accused person."

18      In State of Haryana v Bhajanlal  the Apex Court after having
surveyed the entire case law on the point has laid down certain
indicia with reference to which, a High Court may in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under
Section 482 Cr.P.C may interfere in proceedings relating to
cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
19      In State of Karnataka v L.Muniswamy , the Supreme Court
observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.PC
entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an
abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceedings ought to be quashed.
20      A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan
Goswami v State of Uttaranchal , after examining the scope and
ambit of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, observed that
inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised for the
advancement of justice.  If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is
brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be fully justified in
preventing injustice by invoking the inherent powers of the Court.
21      Before parting with the order, one has to observe that the
parliament enacted the S.C & S.T (PoA) Act with avowed object to
prevent atrocities against the members of that community. The
scheme of the Act clearly demonstrates that the parliament with an
intention to enhance the social dignity and self respect of the
members of the S.C. & S.T community incorporated various
provisions in the Act.  The various provisions of the Act will be a
shield but not a sword.  In recent days the number of cases
registered under this Act is increasing day by day, which clearly
manifests the social awareness among the members of the S.C &
S.T. community.  The letter and spirit of the constitution of this
country is that a citizen of this country should not claim that he
can do everything as a matter of right without discharging the social
and moral obligations cast on him.  Before making an allegation,
one should take reasonable care and caution.  Lodging a complaint
by an association without noticing the factual background may
send a wrong signal to the society.  The provisions of the Act are
being misused for selfish ends. In the instant case, the possibility of
filing of the present complaint by the association in order to achieve
the object of the Act without verifying the factual background may
not be ruled out. If the association has bestowed its interest prior to
filing of the complaint to the rules and regulations governing the
promotion avenues as well as the inter-se seniority being followed in
the feeder cadre, certainly it would not have ventured to lodge the
complaint.  The trauma likely to be undergone, more particularly,
by person at the helm of affairs to be an accused of moral turpitude
on the ground that he has shown discrimination towards down
trodden people, is unfathomable.  For one reason or the other, the
person whose promotion was alleged to have been denied or delayed
by the petitioners, has not chosen to invoke the provisions of the
Act.  Strictly speaking, any dispute pertaining to inter-se seniority
or the service matter falls outside the purview of the provisions of
the S.C & S.T (PoA) Act.  The parliament in its wisdom visualised
the far reaching consequences being faced by the officials who were
entrusted with the work of promotions, might have intentionally
deleted the service matters from the purview of the Act.
22      Viewed from any angle, the association has no locus standi to
fight for the cause related to the service matters.  The parliament in
its wisdom excluded the service jurisprudence from the purview of
S.C & S.T (PoA) Act.  If the intention of the legislature is otherwise,
certainly, it would have brought the service matters pertaining to
the members of the S.C & S.T community within the purview of the
Act.
23      Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
also the principle laid down in cases cited supra, I am of the
considered opinion that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings
for two reasons viz., a) the allegations made in the complaint do not
constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the
petitioners under Section 3 (1) (x) of the S.C & S.T (PoA) Act; and b)
entrustment of investigation to the police in Cr.No.242 of 2011 is
nothing short of abuse of process of law. Hence the proceedings in
Crime No.242 of 2011 of Nagarampalem P.S deserve to be quashed.  
24      Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A4 in Crime No.242 of
2011 of Nagarampalem P.S are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous  
petitions, if any, pending in these petitions shall stand closed.
___________________________    
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J    
01.08.2014.

Though the act of removal is likely to hurt the feelings of his followers, the same would not amount to constituting any illegal act, attracting the penal provisions either under SC & ST Act or IPC and the same does not warrant initiation of any criminal action against the Judge concerned. When no case is even prima facie made out against the Judge concerned for any offence under any of the provisions, the question of issuing any direction to the respondent police to register the case and to proceed against him either under the provisions of SC & ST Act or under the provisions of IPC does not arise herein.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2015
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI
Crl.O.P.No.13548 of 2014

Tindivanam Advocates Association
by its President K.G.Subbaiyyaa .. Petitioner
                     
Vs.

1.The Director General of Police,
   O/o.The Director General of Police,
   No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
   Mylapore, Chennai-4.

2.The District Superintendent of Police,
   O/o.the District Superintendent of Police,
   Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk & District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
   Tindivanam, Tindivanam Taluk,
   Villupuram District.

4.The Inspector of Police,
   Tindivanam Law & Order,
   Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

5.Tindivanam Bar Association
   rep. By its President
   K.Ashokan         ..  Respondents            
(R5 impleaded as per the order
of this court dated 18.6.2014 made in MP.1/2014)

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to direct the first respondent to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to register a case against S.Devanathan, Additional Sub Judge of Tindivanam, Villupuram District on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 21.5.2014 on the file of the respondents 1 to 4 herein.
For Petitioner   : Mr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy
For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, APP
 M/s.K.Balu and
       M.R.Elavarasan(R2)

O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition is filed by Tindivanam Advocates Association, seeking direction to the first respondent, Director General of Police, Chennai to direct the Police officials i.e., District Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police of the concerned District, to register a case against one Thiru.S.Devanathan, Additional Sub Judge of Tindivanam, Villupuram District, on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 21.5.2014.

2.The circumstances under which the complaint dated 21.5.2014 came to be sent, are as follows:
The learned members of the Bar of Tindivanam, Villupuram District do belong to two different Associations viz., (i)Tindivanam Advocates Association and (ii)Tindivanam Bar Association. While one Thiru K.G.Subbaiyyaa, BA., BL., is the President of Tindivanam Advocates Association during May 2014, one K.Ashokan BA., BL., is the president of Tindivanam Bar Association, during May 2014. One Thiru S.Devanathan was during April 2014, transferred to and he assumed as Additional Sub Judge, Tindivanam during summer vacation. There were three portraits of Mahatma Gandhi, Thiruvalluvar and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar fixed above the Dias of the Presiding officer in the Additional Sub Court premises. After assuming office as the Additional Sub Judge, the Presiding Officer concerned called his Office Assistant by name R.Ravichandran and asked him to remove the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and the Office Assistant, as per the instructions of the President Officer, removed the same and thereafter, the same was refixed in the same place. The factum of removal and refixation of portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar came to be known to the Advocates and others and the act of removal by the Presiding officer concerned, according to the members of the petitioner Association amounts to an act of degrading and humiliating Dr.B.R.Ambedkar in the public view and is an act of disgrace and disrespect shown by the Presiding Officer to the National Leader. Thereafter, the act of removal of portrait took a different turn and was sought to be given a different colour not only by the learned members of the Tindivanam Advocates Association, but also by Arunthathiar People Movement, Gukai, Salem District, Ex-Adi Dravidar Welfare Committee, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Government of India, Chennai and all India Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Advocates' Association, High Court Building, Chennai, who convened the meeting of their respective members and passed resolutions, condemning the act of the Presiding Officer in removing the portrait and in threatening his Office Assistant to remove the same, with further request to the High Court, Madras to take appropriate action against the Sub Judge concerned and forwarded due representations along with their resolutions to the Registrar General of High court, Madras and the District Judge.

3.Pending any decision on the representations sent by the Association and Organisations as mentioned above, by the High court of Madras on administrative side in consultation with then learned portfolio Judge of Villupuram District, the petitioner Association addressed a complaint to the fourth respondent, Inspector of Police, Tindivanam on 21.5.2014 to register a case against the Sub Judge under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter shortly referred to as 'SC & ST Act') and under other relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations raised in the complaint are that the Additional Sub Judge, S.Devanathan called his Office Assistant and ordered him to remove the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar alone from its original position and when the Office Assistant refused to do so, the Sub Judge threatened him with dire consequences and scolded him to remove him from service, if he failed to obey his instructions and the Office Assistant was thus compelled to remove the portrait and on coming to know about the same, serious protest was raised for such degrading and humiliating act of the Sub Judge concerned.

4.According to the petitioner/complainant, the portrait was removed wantonly, willfully with criminal intimidation as he belongs to Scheduled Caste community and in the event of his being continued as Additional Sub Judge in any court in Tamil Nadu, the entire Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes people will be affected, as such, appropriate criminal proceedings is warranted by registering the complaint under the provisions of the SC & ST Act and other provisions of IPC. The petitioner Association has, within 5 days from the date of the complaint dated 21.5.2014, also come forward with the present criminal original petition for issuing appropriate direction to register the case on the basis of the complaint dated 21.5.2014.

5.During the pendency of this Criminal Original Petition, the petitioner Association had also been pursuing the issue on administrative side. The learned portfolio judge, when being consulted, kept the issue in abeyance stating that it is not possible for taking up the matter on administrative side, pending adjudication of the Criminal Original Petition. In the mean while, Tindivanam Bar Association appears to have an issue with the petitioner Association in not consulting them in sending the representation and in lodging the criminal complaint against the Judge concerned for appropriate departmental and criminal action against him. The Sub Judge has also, through the District Judge sent a representation to the High Court, Madras regarding what was, according to him actually transpired on 2.5.2014 in the matter of removal of portrait and on the subsequent days following the same. The representation was also sent along with the statement of the Office Assistant R.Ravichandran purported to be obtained on 16.5.2014. However, the issue is not proceeded with on the administrative side in view of the pendency of this Criminal Original Petition and is now pending on the administrative side.

6.Be that as it may, the petitioner Association has in this petition, seriously contended that out of three portraits of Mahatma Gandhi, Thiruvalluvar and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was alone asked to be removed and the same amounts to degrading and humiliating Dr.B.R.Ambedkar in the public view and is also an act of disgrace and disrespect shown to the National Leader by the Judge concerned and it happened as Dr.B.R.Ambedkar belonged to Scheduled Caste community and unless appropriate action is taken against the Judge concerned for his disrespect shown to the father of the Constitution of India, the same will seriously hurt the feelings of the public, who held Dr.B.R.Ambedkar in high esteem and the members of the petitioner Association will suffer from heavy mental agony.

7.Pending this Criminal Original Petition, the President of Tindivanam Bar Association filed a petition in MP.No.1 of 2014 to implead themselves as one of the respondents in this Criminal Original Petition. It is stated by the Tindivanam Bar Association in the supporting affidavit that the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar was removed along with two other portraits for the purpose of cleaning and the portraits were refixed in the same place, as per the statement given by the Office Assistant concerned and the complaint filed by the petitioner Advocates' Association was without consulting the Tindivanam Bar Association, which is the oldest Association and the complaint was given by some of the Advocates to create problem in the issue and there was no intention to disrespect Dr.B.R.Ambedkar in removing his portrait for cleaning purpose. It is their further case that both the Associations held a meeting on 2.6.2014 and discussed the issue and the petitioner Association agreed to withdraw this criminal Original petition to maintain peace and harmony, but went back and the same compelled the Tindivanam Bar Association to pass a resolution to implead themselves in this criminal original petition to express the truth and to seek dismissal of this petition. The Miscellaneous Petition was ordered on 18.6.2014 and Tindivanam Bar Association was impeladed as 5th respondent herein.

8.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.

9.The cause of action for sending the representation and the complaint dated 21.05.2014 is the removal of the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.  There are two versions available regarding the circumstances and the reason for which the portrait was asked to be removed.  According to the petitioner Advocates' Association, out of three portraits, the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar alone was asked to be removed, thereby showing disgrace and disrespect to the national leader. Such version is supported by the Office Assistant R.Ravichandran, who removed the portrait, in his second statement recorded during June 2014. Whereas, according to the fifth respondent Bar Association, all the three portraits of Mahatma Gandhiji, Tiruvalluvar and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar were asked to be removed by the Judge concerned for cleaning purpose and all the three portraits, after removing and cleaning, were refixed in the same place.  This version is also supported by the same Office Assistant in his first statement dated 16.5.2014 and that of the statement of the Judge concerned in his representation sent to the High Court.  It is not stated in the complaint that either of the members of both associations were present in the scene of occurrence and witnessed and the actual conversation between the Judge and Office Assistant concerned as to whether all the portraits were asked to be removed for cleaning purpose or the portrait of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar alone was asked to be removed and when the Office Assistant was allegedly threatened by the Judge concerned to remove the portrait. It is also not stated therein that any member of the Bar or staff or any other  outsiders was present, when the portrait was removed and again refixed.  It is nowhere whispered in the complaint that the Judge concerned, while asking the Office Assistant to remove either all the three portraits or one of the portraits, uttered any words, disgracing or disrespecting the National Leader or in any manner humiliating the community, to which the national leader belong to. The complainant has only stated in their complaint that the act of removal of the portrait amounts to degrading and humiliating Dr.B.R.Ambedkar for the reason of his being born in SC community and the continuance of the Judge concerned as Additional Sub Judge will affect the people belonging to SC and ST community. In my considered view, the conduct on the part of the Judge concerned in asking his Office Assistant to remove the portrait without anything more, that too, not in the presence of any other person, will not constitute any act of atrocities as defined under Section 3(1)(i) to (xv) and punishable under the same SC & SC Act.

10.The learned counsel for the petitioner Association has, at this juncture, drawn the attention of this court to clause 4(i)(1)(t) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, which will have the effect of substituting sub section (1) of section 3 of the Principal Act 1989, providing punishments for offences of atrocities. The particular clause of the Ordinance is extracted hereunder:
"Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
destroys, damages or defiles any object generally known to be held sacred or in high esteem by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.
Explanation For the purposes of this clause, the expression "object" means and includes statue, photograph and portrait.

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine".

11.As the amendment is yet to be introduced, the petitioner cannot be permitted to resort to the same. Even otherwise, as it is the admitted case that the portrait was removed and thereafter refixed and neither destroyed, damaged nor defiled, the allegations made in the complaint, even if it is read in entirety, do not constitute any offence either under the provisions of the SC & ST Act or Indian Penal Code.

12.Before concluding, I am inclined to place Dr.B.R.Ambedkar is one of the greatest national leaders and is the father of our Constitution. The contribution of Dr. Ambedkar in Indian Democracy is not to be forgotten. As a chairman of the Constitutional Committee, he gave a shape to our country of a complete Sovereign, Democratic and Republic based on adult franchise. Baba Saheb Ambedkar s name will be written in golden letters in the history of India as a creator of social justice. This fact is doubtless. He was not only the man of age and builder of the Constitution but also the creator of social justice and betterment of the downtrodden. He was one of the few sons in the History of India that he can be said to be the gift of Indian freedom movement. If Mahatma Gandhi gave direction and lesson of morality then Baba Saheb gave shape to social aspect without exploitation. In true sense of the word, he gave democratic and anti caste aim. The great leader spent his whole life for the betterment of the poor, exploited, untouchables and troubled classes. Thus, Dr. Ambedkar s contribution to the Indian Constitution is undoubtedly of the highest order. Indeed he deserved to be called the father or the Chief Architect of the Indian Constitution. Dr.Ambedkar rose as the political icon and he played a significant role in national politics and as the Chairman of drafting Committee of Indian Constitution. His life is a classic and most inspiring example of what a man can achieve by hard work, knowledge, and clear-cut priorities.  It is his words that "in an ideal society, there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellow men". He wanted to annihilate caste system not by revenge, hatred and violence, but by rethinking, reason and reformation. He, therefore, taught untouchables To organize, educate and agitate with an aim to finishing caste prejudices, the arrogance. He wanted his people to improve their condition by education, enlightenment and enterprise not by animosity, anger and abuse. The leader who professed and aimed at anti caste system was not looked at as one belonged to any particular caste or community. The father of our constitution, is one of the few national leaders, who was, is and will always be held in high esteem and adored, admired and worshipped by every citizen of our Country.

13.However, such respect shown to our great leader is in no way degraded by the act of removal of his portrait regarding the reason for which two different versions available and over the issue both the Associations of Tindivanam also got divided. Though the act of removal is likely to hurt the feelings of his followers, the same would not amount to constituting any illegal act, attracting the penal provisions either under SC & ST Act or IPC and the same does not warrant initiation of any criminal action against the Judge concerned. When no case is even prima facie made out against the Judge concerned for any offence under any of the provisions, the question of issuing any direction to the respondent police to register the case and to proceed against him either under the provisions of SC & ST Act or under the provisions of IPC does not arise herein. Hence, the petitioner is dis-entitled to get any relief in this petition.

14.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

rk 27-04-2015
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No



To
1.The Director General of Police,
   O/o.The Director General of Police,
   No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
   Mylapore, Chennai-4.

2.The District Superintendent of Police,
   O/o.the District Superintendent of Police,
   Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk & District.

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
   Tindivanam, Tindivanam Taluk,
   Villupuram District.

4.The Inspector of Police,
   Tindivanam Law & Order,
   Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras.




























     K.B.K.VASUKI, J.

rk









  Crl.OP No.13548 of 2014












27.04.2015

"public view" in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. 2015 http://judis.nic.in/Judis_Andhra/list_new2.asp?FileName=12672

      

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO          

Criminal Petition No.14101 of 2014

22-04-2015

P. Bhaskar Raju..... PetitionerAND

The State of Telangana Rep. by Public Prosecutor, and others. . Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner  : Sri K. Venumadhav

Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: Addl. Public Prosecutor

^Counsel for Respondent No.3:Smt. M.Bhagyasri 

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1)      2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 106 (AP)

2)      2012 (1) ALD (Crl.) 396 (AP)

3)      2012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 288 (AP)

4)      2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 882 (SC)

5)      MANU/DE/0085/2004 = 109(2004) DLT915    

6)      2005 (5) ALD 566 = 2000 (5) ALT 602

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO          

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14101 of 2014   

ORDER: 

     In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner/accused seeks to quash the proceedings in FIR No.270 of

2014 of Thorrur PS, Warangal District.

2)      On the report given by one Jatoth Gutta of Kistuthanda

Chinnavangara, belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the police registered

FIR. The allegations are that in respect of lands acquired by his grand-

father, the names of complainant and his two brothers were not

recorded in revenue records and so, in order to request the accused

who is the VRO of their village, to enter their names in the Pahanies,

the complainant and his own brotherJatoth Mallaiah went to the

house of accused at about 7 AM on 07.10.2014 and requested the 

accused to enter their in the Pahanies. On that, accused replied that he

cannot do that work and they have put up an application to MRO but

the complainant and his brother importuned him. On that, it is alleged,

the accused grew wild and abused them asLambada Bastards why    

you are pestering me in spite of my repeated telling to you.

        Hence the complaint. Investigation is reported to be pending.

3 a)    Denying the FIR allegations, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused vehemently argued that even if the entire

allegations are uncontroverted, they do not constitute any offence

inasmuch as they would reveal that the accused has explained to them

that he was not competent to enter the names of complainant and his

brothers in the Pahanies and they have to put up application to MRO

for consideration and in spite of it they annoyed with repeated

requests and in such scenario even if he shouted on them, it cannot be

said that he had any criminal intention to abuse them by caste to

demean them. Since there is no intentional insult or intimidation, the

offence under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes ((Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC & ST

Act) will not attract. In this context, he relied upon the following

decision to buttress his argument that there must be requisite intention

to insult the person by cast to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x)

of SC & ST Act.

Budapap v. State of A.P.

b)      Secondly and most importantly, he argued that even if the

allegations are accepted to be true, still charge under Section

3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act cannot be maintainable in view of

the fact that the alleged offence took place in the early hours

of the day at the house of the accused which is neither a

public place nor within public view.    He contended that

unless the offence is taken place within the public view

accused cannot be held guilty. On this aspect he relied upon

the following decisions.

1.      D.Santosh Reddy v. S.H.O. of Shamshabad PS, Hyderabad    

2.      V.Sudhakar v. R.Ram Mohan Rao   

He thus prayed to quash the proceedings.

4 a)    Per contra, opposing the petition, learned counsel for 3rd

respondent/complainant argued that a perusal of the FIR allegations

would clearly show that accused had intentionally insulted the

complainant by his caste and if really he were annoyed by the

repeated requests of the complainant, he could have shouted at him in

a different manner and there was no need of abusing him by his caste

which reflects his intention to insult the complainant by his caste. He

argued that in deciding a quash petition, the Court has to take the FIR

allegations to be true on their face value and then only decide whether

such allegations constitute any offence or not but at this stage the

Court shall not make a rowing enquiry as to the veracity or otherwise

of the FIR allegations. On this aspect he relied upon the decision

reported in Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing

Counsel  .

b)      Secondly, he argued that though the offence was occurred in a

private place, still it was within the public view and therefore, the

offence is maintainable against the accused. He thus prayed to dismiss

the petition.  

5)      In the light of above rival arguments, the point for

determination is:

Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?

6) POINT:  The offence alleged against the petitioner/accused is one

under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act.  The said Section reads thus:

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe 

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a

member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place

within public view;

Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be

less than six months but which may extend to five years and with

fine.

To attract the offence, the requisite ingredients are:

(i)     Offender is not a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled

Tribe;

(ii)    He intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a

member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;

(iii)   In any place within public view

In the light of above ingredients, it has now to be seen whether a

prima facie offence could be made out against the petitioner/accused

or not.

a)      The first and foremost argument on behalf of the petitioner is

that even if the FIR allegations are uncontroverted, no offence could

be made in this case because there was no intentional insulting of the

complainant in the name of his caste by the accused inasmuch as in

spite of the accused informing that he was not the authority to note the

Pahanies in the names of complainant and his brothers and they have

to file application before the MRO, still the complainant repeatedly

demanded accused to enter their names in the Pahanies and in this

back drop, even if the accused shouted on them, that might be due to

annoyance got by him out of persistent pestering by the complainant.

On the other hand, the contention of 3rd respondent/complainant is that

even if the accused was annoyed by the request of the complainant,

there was no need of abusing him by his caste which demonstrates his

intention to insult. His contention is that the FIR allegations should be

taken to be true on their face value in this regard.

b)      It is true in a quash petition, the allegations in FIR have to be

notionally accepted to be true for deciding the petition. This was held

by Apex Court in Swaran Singhs case (4 supra) wherein it was

observed thus:

At this stage the Court is not to see whether the allegations in the

FIR are correct or not, but only to see whether treating the FIR

allegations as correct as offence is made out or not.

7)      So, following the above principle, if the FIR allegations are

perused, the accused abused the complainant as:

 ????? ??????????????? ?????? ???????????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????.     

If the said allegations are uncontroverted, they demonstrate the

intention of the accused to insult, because as rightly pointed out by the

counsel for respondent, accused had no business to abuse the

complainant by his caste even if he was annoyed by repeated

importunes of the complainant. Hence the intention has to be inferred

from the circumstances.

a)      In this regard, the decision reported in the case of Budapap

(1 supra) can be distinguished. In that case, the complainant was

attacked by about 7 persons and they went to him and abused him and 

beat him with brooms, chappals, hands and legs and further abused

him in his caste name. It was observed that the complainant did not

make a specific allegation as to who among the accused used those

abusive words. In the light of those facts it was held that the

complainant could not prove the intention to humiliate him and

quashed the proceedings. That is not case here. So, the first argument

raised by the petitioner does not carry merit.

b)      Then, the second argument of the petitioner/accused is that

since the offence allegedly took place in the house of petitioner which

is a private place, and not within the public view and no members of

the public have allegedly witnessed the incident, the offence under

Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act was not made out by the prosecution.

On the other hand, the contention of 3rd respondent/complainant is that

though the offence took place in the house of accused, still that place

was within the public view and hence the offence was very much

committed.

8)      In this context, the questions would arise are what is the

distinction between a public place and a place within public view

and further, if the offence had occurred at either place, whether it is

sufficient that that place is amenable to public or that public must

physically viewed the incident to complete the offence. These

questions were answered in the following decisions.

1.      Swaran Singhs case (4 supra)

2.      Daya Bhatnagar v. State

3.      Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai v. Union of

India

a)      In Swaran Singhs case (4 supra) the facts are that the

complainant was working as car driver under Sh.Umesh Gupta. He 

belongs to Khatik caste. He used to stand near the car parked at the

gate. His grievance was that every now and then Smt. Simran Kaur

and her daughter while passing through him used to abuse him by his

caste. On 10.12.2014, in the morning while he was cleaning the car,

both mother and daughter threw dirty water on him and abused him on

his caste which was witnessed by guard of the apartment and another

driver. While drawing distinction between public place and a place

within public view the Apex Court held as follows:

28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first

informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a

`Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of

the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public

view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view.

It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been

committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view.

However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a

lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the

road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a

place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a

building, but some members of the public are there (not merely

relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the

public view. We must, therefore, not 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.

b)      In Daya Bhatnagars case (5 supra) one of the points referred

to third Judge is:

"(1) What is the correct and real meaning of expression "public view"

occurring in Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and whether it

would include the view of the accused in a counter FIR?

It was held as follows:

Para 15. x x x x

(c) the incident must occur in any place within the public view. There

cannot be any dispute that the offence can be committed at any place

whether it is a private place or a "public view" as long as it is within

the "public view". The requirement of "public view" can be satisfied

even in a private place, where the public is present.

     Para-19 x x x x x

Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the

expression "public view" in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act has to be

interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small

number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not

interested in any of the parties.

c)      In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.s (6 supra) a learned

single Judge of this High court expressed same view as follows:

Para -12 x x x x

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the

interpretation sought to be given by the learned Senior Counsel is

misconceived. He submits that the offence should be committed in a

place which is amenable to public view and therefore, if the chamber

of the Officer is amenable for public view, it is sufficient to constitute

an offence and it is not necessary that the public should physically

view the situation or event. (Emphasis supplied).

13. Having given serious consideration to the issue, I am of the view

that the contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be

countenanced for the simple reason the very section itself is specific

that the insult or intimidation should have taken place in public view.

It need not be a public place, it could also be a private place. The

intention of the Parliament was 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, and it would be

redundant if the contention of the learned Government Pleader is

accepted. 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 is 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 decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court fully

covers the case on hand. (Emphasis supplied)

9)      So, from the above judgments, it is clear that irrespective of the

place of offence being a public place or private place, it must be

within public view i.e. member/members of public present and

witnessed the incident to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x)

of SC & ST Act.

9)      Coming to the instant case, the complaint allegations would

read as if the offence took place in the house of petitioner/accused, but

it is not mentioned about the public view i.e. presence of public and

witnessing the incident. As such, from the facts, it must be held that

the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act is not made out as

per law and continuation of investigation will thereby amount to abuse

of process of law.

10)     In similar circumstances, in the cases of D.Santosh Reddy and

V.Sudhakar (2 and 3 supra) proceedings were held not maintainable

against the concerned accused.

11)     In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed and proceedings

in FIR No.270 of 2014 of Thorrur PS, Warangal District are hereby

quashed.

     As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________   

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J      

Dt. 22-04-2015