1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4742 OF 2009 Ramling Basaling Mali & Anr. .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.P.R.Salvi i/b. S.P.Telgote for applicants Mr.P.G.Kharat with Mr.G.R.Baviskar for respondent No.2 Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th January 2010. P.C.: 1] Heard Mr.Salvi for applicant, learned APP for State and the learned Counsel for complainant respondent No.2. Affidavit filed by original complainant is taken on record. 2] With their assistance, I have perused the complaint made to the police being C.R.No.309 of 2009 dated 1st September 2009 by the second respondent alleging offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act for short). The only contention raised by Mr.Salvi is that the 2 ingredients of the offence that has been carved out by section 3 are not specified in this case. He submits that from a perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the offence alleged is under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. However, the offence must be of intentional insulting or intimidating with an intent to humiliate the member of schedule caste or scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Mr.Salvi submits that the complaint proceeds to allege that the petitioner applicant was present at his office and the complainant along with another person approached the applicant for seeking permission of appearance in respect of certain students who had completed a course. The applicant is alleged to have told her to wait in the office till 5.00 p.m., and thereafter, he would look into the matter. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicant and another person working in the office had called the complainant at Nisarg Hotel. It is alleged that further incident took place at this hotel. But, the complaint does not state that the utterances were in any place within public view. Therefore, relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, reported in 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 368 (Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra). Mr.Salvi urges that the complaint does not disclose any offence, much less, punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be quashed and if not, against both 3 accused, atleast insofar as the applicant No.2 who is working as Registrar. 3] On the other hand, learned Counsel for complainant would contend that the complaint must be read as a whole. So read, it is clear that the complaint alleges commission of offence punishable under section 3(1) (x) of the Act. He submits that the complaint specifically alleges that the applicant told the complainant to come to Nisarg Hotel. He submits that Nisarg Hotel is at Mulund, Mumbai. The complaint alleges that the incident took place in the hotel. Therefore, it is not as if the complainant has not alleged that the acts do not constitute the offence. The utterances are very clear. They are in the name of complainant’s caste. In fact, it is an insult to all Mahars and further it is alleged that the complainant being a lady should know how favours are sought from persons like applicant No.1. 4] From a reading of the plaint as a whole, it is clear that there are specific allegations against the petitioner/ applicant No.1. It is not possible to agree with Mr.Salvi that the complaint discloses no offence. The words used in the section are “public view” and not public place. The allegations are that the incident took place at Nisarg Hotel. In these 4 circumstances, it is not possible to conclude at this prima facie stage that the utterances were not made in public view. Therefore, as far as the applicant No.1 is concerned, the subject complaint/ FIR cannot be quashed. 5] However, it is urged by the complainant that even against applicant No.2, who is a lady, there are specific allegations that she is also prima facie guilty of offences alleged. Mr.Salvi would urge that as far as applicant No.2 is concerned, complaint and the statement proceeds to state that the complainant met her at her office at which point, after some discussion, even she is supposed to have uttered the words which insulted the complainant by her caste. 6] Having perused the entire complaint, to my mind, as far as applicant No.2 is concerned, I am of the view that prima facie the complaint does not disclose any offence as far as she is concerned. She is supposed to have uttered something with regard to pending court cases. She is also supposed to have told the complainant that she would not give her any permission. However, as far as the utterances are concerned, it is not clear as to whether they are attributable to her or Dr.Javanjal. In such 5 circumstances, to my mind, the case for quashing insofar as alleging offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, the complaint does not disclose any prima facie case against applicant No.2. Therefore, the proceedings deserves to be quashed as against her alone. However, this does not absolve her from being proceeded against or punish for offences under other penal laws, including, IPC. 7] Application is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The case registered against applicant No.2, Mrs.Mangala Anchan is discharged insofar as offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act are concerned. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)