THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5628 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in pursuance of FIR in Crime No.56 of 2010 of Hindupur II-Town Police Station. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. None appears for the 2nd respondent-complainant, though served with notices. Perused the record. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Hindupur, and the same was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and report and, thereupon, the police registered Crime No.56 of 2010 against the petitioners/A1 and A2, for the offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, the Act). According to the complainant, she purchased a vacant site situate in Hindupur Municipality and when she was about to lay the foundation in the site, the petitioners-accused, without having any manner of right and with a view to grab the property, filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 against her and, A1 threatened the complainant to settle the matter in Lok Adalat. She further alleged that on 06.03.2010, A1 prepared some documents and obtained her signatures on the said document and promised to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant if she stated no objection for passing a decree in O.S.No.20 of 2010 and A1, without giving the said amount, obtained her signatures and produced the documents before Lok Adalat and played fraud on her. It is further alleged that on 24.03.2010, when the complainant was raising constructions, A1 and A2 came there and obstructed her and A2 threatened the mother-in-law of the complainant and she filed a complaint against A2 which was registered as Crime No.73 of 2006 under Sections 354, 506 and 509 IPC. The complainant further alleges that bearing grudge against the complainant, A1 and A2 abused her in filthy language in the name of her caste and beat the complainant though she was carrying 7t h month pregnancy, and the complainant fell down and received injuries and she was shifted to hospital by one Rajeshwar and Susheelamma. It is further alleged that A1 and A2 threatened the complainant to vacate the property else they would kill her. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not at all attracted and, there is no averment in the complaint that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and the accused did not belong to either of the said communities, or that the alleged incident has taken place in public view and that the alleged abuse was with an intent to insult the complainant. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act states that whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with an intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view, is punishable. To attract the ingredients of the said offence, it is, therefore, necessary that the offender is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the victim shall be a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and, the offender intentionally insulted or intimidated the victim with an intent to humiliate her and the said incident happened within the public view. A perusal of the complaint would disclose that no averment is made therein to the effect that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, nor is it averred in the complaint that the accused did not belong to the said community. Though it is alleged that the incident has taken place in public place, no averment is made to the effect that it was within the public view. To fall within the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the incident can happen at any place, but it shall be within the public view, in the sense, that the incident must have been witnessed by some members of the public. There is no such averment in the complaint that any members of the public were present when the said incident took place and witnessed the same. Of course, it is said that the victim was taken to hospital by one Rajeshwar and Susheelamma, but it is nowhere stated in the complaint that the said two persons have witnessed the occurrence of the alleged abuse by the accused in the name of caste or the alleged assault on the complainant. Further, the complaint does not specify as to who among the accused has used abusive language against the complainant in the name of her caste. What all alleged is that, bearing grudge against the complainant, both the accused have abused. It is hard to believe that both the accused would have, in one voice, used the abusive language, as if in chorus. In BUDAPAP AND OTHERS v. STATE OF A.P., REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER[1], this Court held as follows: “In order to attract the said provisions, there must be an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Here, in the instant case, the report does not disclose any such intention on the part of the petitioners to humiliate or insult the caste of the 2nd respondent. Moreover, there is no specific allegation as to who used those abusive words and he simply stated all of them went and abused in the name of his caste. It is a bald allegation as contained in Gara Yesobu and others case. In that case also bald allegations are made against the accused stating that they used the offending words. On such facts, my learned brother Justice C.Y. Somayajulu held that such allegations do not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and that prosecution on such allegations is a clear abuse of process of law. In view of the cited decisions of this Court and considering the context in which the incident took place, I am of the considered view that the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act do not attract in this case.” In the present case also, there is no averment in the complaint to the effect that the abusive words were used by the accused with an intention to insult her or with intent to humiliate the complainant, apart from the fact that no specific allegation is made as to who among the accused used the said words. I n J. SUMANA v. ENDLURI ASEERWADAMMA AND ANOTHER[2], this Court held that when there was no members of the public at the place of occurrence and it was not within the public view, no offence can be said to have been committed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MUMBAI AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[3], this Court held that the alleged humiliation does not constitute an offence under the Act when it has not taken place in public view. I n GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS[4], the Apex Court held that: “According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused- appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No.3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused–appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No.3 in a place within public view. 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.” In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions and, in view of the fact that, in the present case also, the complaint does not disclose that the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the petitioners/accused did not belong to the said community and no averment is made in the complaint to the effect that the incident has taken place within public view and that the alleged abusive language was used against the complainant intentionally to insult her or with an intent to humiliate her, the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case where further proceedings insofar as the said offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are concerned, are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and they are, accordingly, quashed. However, the investigation insofar as the other offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, shall go on, in view of the specific allegation contained in the complaint that the accused beat the complainant and caused injuries, ignoring the fact that she was carrying 7th month pregnancy, and that the complainant had to be shifted to the hospital for treatment. The truth or otherwise of the said allegation can only come out after due investigation. Further proceedings in FIR No.56 of 2010 insofar as the offence under Section 323 is concerned are, therefore, held not liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed-in-part, quashing further investigation in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act in Crime No.56 of 2010 of Hindupur II- Town Police Station, but, however, the investigation in respect of the offence under Section 323 IPC shall go on. ________________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 03rd November, 2011 KSM [1] 2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 106 (A.P.) [2] 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 252 (AP) [3] 2000 (5) ALD 566 [4] 2009 (4) SCJ 275