THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 418 of 2006 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted for quashing the charge sheet bearing P.R.C.No. 62 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guduru in Crime No. 33 of 2005 of Chillakur Police Station, Nellore District, under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hence forth referred to as “Act No. 33 of 1989”). The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent, out of personal animosity and grudge, lodged a false complaint against the writ petitioner on 27th March 2005 before the Police Station, Chillakur, Nellore District, alleging that the writ petitioner and another person by name Sri Tirumalasetti Venkataramanaiah reached the fish tank where the complainant was trying to finalize the accounts with regard to the sale of fish for the day and then abused him by taking his caste name. It is stated that the complainant is a member belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Therefore, the police at Chillakur have registered Crime No. 33 of 2005 on 28th March 2005. After carrying out the necessary investigation into the matter, charge sheet has been filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur on 8th August 2005. It is this charge sheet, which is sought to be quashed in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner very strenuously contended that the complaint itself did not make out the commission of offence and when the complaint itself has been read as a whole, it does not disclose that the offence alleged against the writ petitioner, even, prima facie, has been committed. It is stated in the complaint that the writ petitioner and another person by name Sri Tirumalasetti Venkataramanaiah came near the fish tank at about 06.30 p.m. and then abused the complainant by taking his caste name. The complaint has not even alleged as to who of the two abused the complainant. Further, the learned counsel would submit that there is not even a mention that there was anyone else in the vicinity when this offence was said to have been committed. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the offence under Section 3(x) of Act No. 33 of 1989 is not liable to be said to have been committed by the writ petitioner, for, only when any person not being a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, intentionally insults with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view, an offence under Section 3(x) of Act No. 33 of 1989 can be said to have been committed. Since the allegation contained in the complaint itself does not disclose that the alleged abuses have been unleashed within the public view, the offence itself is not liable to have been committed at all. For this reason also, the learned counsel submits that it is improper to prosecute the writ petitioner. Above all, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Police, has made an illegal demand of payment of Rs.15,000/-, failing which, he threatened to implicate the writ petitioner and since the writ petitioner has stuck to his ground that he has never abused the complainant, he has not succumbed to the wishes of the 2nd respondent and hence, out of malice, the 2nd respondent has implicated the writ petitioner in a false case. It is further alleged that to humiliate the writ petitioner, the 2nd respondent has sent up the police party to his house in the village, so that he will be losing esteem in the eyes of the villagers. The writ petitioner being a well-known functionary of a political party, the 2nd respondent has indulged in these tactics, so as to force him to succumb to his illegal demands and after realizing that the writ petitioner is not the kind of a person who would succumb to such illegal acts, has maliciously implicated the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would further submit that the harassment meted out by the 2nd respondent was so depressing that at one point of time, the writ petitioner found it more appropriate to end his life rather than live with the humiliation heaped upon him by the 2nd respondent and hence, attempted to commit suicide. He has been rescued with a timely assistance and intervention of the doctors. Consequently, Crime No. 42 of 2005 under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against him for his attempt to kill himself. The writ petitioner would further urge that he has taken up the issue of illegal demands of the 2nd respondent with the higher-ups of the police Department and consequently, the 3rd respondent, who is also a Sub- Divisional Police Officer, has been appointed to conduct a preliminary enquiry but, however, since the findings at that enquiry were inconvenient, they were wrapped up in the files of the police officers and they were not allowed to come into light. He would further urge that if only the findings of the Deputy Superintendent are brought out, the truth would be known as to the lack of bona fides behind the entire case. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that this is one of those rarest of rare cases, where the discretion and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised for quashing the charge sheet filed against the writ petitioner falsely implicating him. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also placed strong reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in J. Shiva Shankar v. Deputy Superintendent of Police[1]. Per contra, the learned counsel assisting the Government Pleader for Home would submit that the counter-affidavit in this case was filed by none other than the Superintendent of Police of the District, after thoroughly verifying the records concerned. The Superintendent of Police has specifically asserted in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit that the allegation levelled by the writ petitioner against the 2nd respondent – Sub-Divisional Police Officer about the illegal gratification solicited by him was found as incorrect. The Superintendent of Police has this to say in that regard: “ ….. The further allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to pay either Rs.15,000/- or give 10 tones of cement to Tirupathi from Naidupet for the purpose of construction of his house was found to be false, concocted and invented only for the purpose of this writ petitioner.” He has also pointed out that the 3rd respondent has since retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st December 2005, hence, the affidavit sworn to by him has not been filed in the matter. Therefore, the entire question boils down to this, as to whether the charge sheet filed by Chillakur police in Crime No. 33 of 2005 is liable to be quashed or not. It is now well-settled that the criminal law, which is set in motion with the lodging of the First Information Report should not be interfered with by Courts exercising the writ jurisdiction and that great care and caution should be exercised while quashing the First Information Report or the charge sheet as the case may be, as the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, will not be collecting any evidence and it is only the competent criminal Court after completely collecting the evidence on both the sides, would be able to arrive at a correct finding about commission or otherwise of the offence. Only in the rarest of rare cases, where either the complaint or the charge sheet, when read as a whole, does not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence and when such acts on the part of the State, which amount to victimization and undue harassment, as they can cause grave hardship to the respectable people in the society as that will cause an irreparable dent to their reputation and standing in the society, either the First Information Report or the charge sheet, when considered as the result of the abuse of the process, should be quashed. When I have perused the First Information Report lodged by the complainant and also the charge sheet, I am not able to subscribe to the view canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the present, inasmuch as the complaint specifically alleges that the complainant has been abused by taking his caste name. He has specially pointed out that two persons, one of them being the accused-writ petitioner, have come to the fishery tank at about 06.30 pm., and abused the complainant. Of the two, who exactly abused the complainant is a matter of evidence, but the fact remains that the complainant has been abused by taking his caste name. The place where the offence is alleged to have been committed is a fish tank in the village and consequently, it falls within the scope of public place. The other requirement as to whether the offence has been committed “within public view” is again a mixed question of fact and law. The expression “public view” will have to receive a very wider scope. Admittedly, the complaint discloses that two persons reached the fish tank and one of them is the accused. Therefore, at the time the offence was committed, there is at least one more individual person at the scene of offence other than the complainant and the accused. Whether that would be a sufficient necessity to fall within the expression the “public view” is a question, which has got to be addressed and decided by the competent criminal Court. It should not be speculated, at this stage, that a single human being’s presence will not be sufficient to call that a “public view”. I, therefore, do not consider it appropriate to pronounce any opinion thereon, at this stage of the proceedings. To my mind, the litmus test of scrutinizing the First Information Report and the charge sheet for the purpose of finding out as to whether there was prima facie material to allege that an offence is committed or not, has passed the preliminary scrutiny and therefore, this is not one of those rarest of rare cases where the writ jurisdiction should be exercised for quashing the charge sheet. But nonetheless, the leaned counsel for the writ petitioner is right in drawing my attention to the judgment rendered by the Division bench in J. Shiva Shankar’s case (cited supra). The Division Bench taking a note of somewhat similar circumstances, as are existing in the present case, directed that till the disposal of the criminal case by the competent criminal Court, the accused person shall not be arrested. Following this precedent, I also consider it appropriate to direct the police not to arrest the writ petitioner till such time the criminal Court concludes the trial and pronounces its verdict in the matter. Subject to what has been stated supra, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 17h November 2009 ksld [1] 2002 (2) ALT 295 (D.B.)