HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2954 OF 2008 DATE: 09-09-2011 BETWEEN: Karanam Srinivasa Rao. - - - Petitioner/ A-2. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and two others. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2954 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/A-2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.9 of 2008, dated 03-02-2008, on the file of Regidi Amudalavasa Police station, Srikakulam District, registered for offences punishable under Section 323 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short, ‘the Act’). 2. Whereas the Petitioner is A-2, the Respondent No.3 is the de- facto complainant in the F.I.R. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the First Information Report. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State. 4. The prosecution version which is to be considered here is as follows : On 02-02-2008 at about 09-00 a.m the de-facto complainant in the case went to the house of A-2 situated at Majji Ramudupeta village in connection with a complaint made against him with regards to sanction of Indiramma Old Age Pension by A-2, then A-2 and A-1 in the case abused the de-facto complainant with reference to his caste i.e. Mala caste as “Mala Lanjakodukullara” being not a member of Scheduled Caste. Further, A-3 and A-4 at Appapuram Anjaneya temple manhandled the de-facto complainant and also abused him with reference to his caste also not being members of the same caste. Therefore the de-facto complainant gave report to the concerned Station House Officer, Regidii Amudalavalasa P.S. on the basis of which, the case was registered in Crime No.9 of 2008 for the above said offences. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner/A-2 that he was the President of Telugudesam Party of Majji Ramudupeta village and he is innocent of the offences and whereas as per the record, the alleged incident is said to have taken place within the house of A-2 it was not a public place i.e., it was only a private place and there is no basis to say that any public viewed the incident and therefore Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not applicable here. 6. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the de-facto complainant that the prosecution record clearly provides that the alleged incident took place in front of the house of A-2 and not within the house of A-2 and there is clear material to the effect that the incident took place in a public place and within public view and hence there are no grounds to allow the Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings? 8. It is pertinent to note here that as per the record the incident took place at the house of A-2 but not within the house of A-2. By virtue of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, A-1 to A-4 must have intentionally insulted or intimidated the de-facto complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in a place within public view with an intent to humiliate him. 9. Therefore, by virtue of this provision the alleged incident should have taken place within public view. It is mandatory. Further, therefore even supposing that the incident took place within a private place, if it was viewed by public, the same comes within the ambit of this provision. In other words, no such offence is made out if it took place within the public place unless it was viewed by public. In fact, there is nothing to the effect that the incident took place within public view. The front portion of the house of A-2 cannot be held to be a public place or private place unless necessary material is there to ascertain it. It is informed that the investigation of the case is going on. Unless necessary investigation of the case is completed, it may not be possible to come to a conclusion that it was witnessed by any members of the public also. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to allow the Criminal Petition at this stage. However, the Petitioner/A-2 is at liberty to renew his application for the said relief subject to the findings arrived at after the completion of the investigation of the case. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:09-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 168 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2954 OF 2008 September, 09, 2011 DSH