THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8168 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.256 of 2009 of IV Town Police Station, Nizamabad registered for offence punishable under Sections 506 IPC and 3(x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’). The petitioner is the Accused and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the criminal case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the above crime. The case was registered for the said offences on the ground that the accused involved in abusing and threatening the defacto complainant using the words ‘you cannot pluck a single pubic hair of mine’. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that by virtue of Section 3(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, there should be an insult to the defacto complainant made by the accused within public view in the name of caste and the alleged act of the accused does not come within the purview of the said Act and hence the proceedings are to be quashed relying upon the decision in POTLURI POORNA CHANDRA PRABHAKARA RAO v. STATE OF A.P.[1]. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings. In the decision cited above, under similar circumstances, this Court held as under: “The second ground raised for quashing the proceedings that according to the averments made by the defacto complainant in her complaint that the petitioner herein telephoned her and abused her on the ground of caste. The leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the averment is taken to be true for the purposes of the case, the offence is not made out. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act, which reads as under: ‘Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.’ In the present case, the averment made by the defacto complainant that she was abused on telephone. Therefore, this Court holds that the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act are not attracted to the present set of facts”. In view of this provision, the accused should have involved in an act which resulted in insulting the defacto complainant within the public view by reason of his caste. Abusing him in the name of his caste is not necessary whereas insulting him in the public view is suffice to constitute the offence. The observations made in the above said decision are well applicable here. Therefore, the application of Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act with reference to the facts and circumstances of this case does not arise at all. Further, there are no specific words of intimidating the defacto complainant. Further, it cannot come within the ambit of Section 503 IPC which defines what is meant by criminal intimidation to prosecute him under Section 506 IPC. Therefore, taking cognizance of the matter by the learned Magistrate is not tenable and accordingly the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.256 of 2009 of IV Town Police Station, Nizamabad. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 28-12-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8168 of 2009 28.12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8168 of 2009 Date: 28th December, 2011 Between: Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed .. Petitioner/Accused And The State of A.P., through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS IV Town, Nizamabad, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents [1] 2001(2) ALD (Crl.) 834 (AP)