HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2925 OF 2005 Date: 23.10.2009 Between: M.V. Tirivengalachary and another ……Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2925 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing First Information Report in Crime No.322 of 2005 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam relating to the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, the Act) mistakenly mentioned as Section 3 instead of Section 3(1)(x) in the First Information Report. The 2nd respondent is the defacto-complainant who claims to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Cast. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the accused 1 and 2 (A-1 and 2) in this crime. A-2 is wife of A-1. A-1 was previously working as Principal in College of Education being run by Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha. Admissions are taken into that college for B.Ed., course in Hindi Medium. The 2nd respondent was one of the aspirants for entery into that college. It is alleged that A-1 and 2 collected huge amounts from the 2nd respondent and began dodging to give seatim and failed to repay amounts collected from him. According to the 2nd respondent, the incident in question took place on 27.05.2005 at 9.30 p.m when he along with his elder brother went to house of A-1 for demanding back the money said to have been paid by the 2nd respondent to them. It is alleged that at that time A-1 uttered “ “ apart from other utterances. On the report given by the 2nd respondent in Telugu, the police registered this crime against A-1 and 2. Relying upon the decisions of our High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai and others V. Union of India and others (2000 (5) ALD 566), it is contended that in order to attract the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, the utterances should have been made in a place of public view and that in the present case even as per allegations in First Information Report, the alleged utterances were inside house of the accused. On the other hand, relying on E. Tirupem Reddy Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandyal (2006 Criminal Law Journal page 1606) of Division Bench of our High Court, it is contended by the 2nd respondent’s counsel that it does not matter whether the utterances were made in a public place or in a private place and that the question is whether that place is a place of public view. I am of the opinion First Information Report lodged by the 2nd respondent is not clear as to exact location in the house where A-1 is stated to have uttered the above words. If those words were uttered at the entrance of A-1’s house, then the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is attracted as against A-1. My reasoning is supported by decision of the Supreme Court in Keya Mukherjee Vs. Magma Leasing Limited and another (2008 (3) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 527) on this aspect. It is a question of fact as to where exactly the alleged utterances by A-1 were made and whether general public have any view to that place. So it cannot be decided in this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whether the utterances were made at a place where public have got view. In so far as A-2 is concerned, even as per report of the 2nd respondent, she uttered no words much less insulting words against the 2nd respondent touching his caste. Therefore, registration of crime against A-2 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is only untenable and illegal. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Petition fails in so far as the 1st petitioner-A-1 is concerned and the 2nd petitioner A-2 is entitled for relief in this Petition. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing First Information Report in Crime No.320 of 2005 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam in so far as the 2nd petitioner/A-2 is concerned for the offence under Section 31(x) of the Act. This Criminal Petition is dismissed in so far as the 1st petitioner/A-1 is concerned. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J Date:23.10.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2925 OF 2005 Date:23.10.2009. Gk.