bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1820 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1820 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1820 OF 2007 Mr.Rajiv Ram Labhaya Suri ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents Ms.Anita A. Agarwal i/by Ashok M.Saraogi for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 State. Mr.S.K.Sthalekar for the respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 25TH APRIL, 2008 25TH APRIL, 2008 25TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This writ petition seeks to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Special Case No.11 pending before the Designated Court, Mumbai, trying cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to the Atrocities Act) and under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 2. The contentions raised by the petitioner are that the ingredients which constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act are not made out 2 as the statements attributed to the petitioner were not made in a place within the public view. It is submitted that the F.I.R. discloses that the spot where the incident took place was 12 feet away from the main gate of the compound of the building in which both, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 reside. It is further submitted that the statements recorded by the police of persons working in the same compound and the representative of the Court Receiver who was also present at the relevant time had not heard any vile and abusive language used by the petitioner against the respondent No.2, thus humiliating him. It is also submitted that the compound of the building known as Bhalerao Nivas Building abuts on two roads, as shown in the rough sketch of scene of offence, which are far away from the spot. 3. In my opinion, all these contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be raised before the Magistrate when the trial proceeds. It will be necessary to lead evidence before it could be decided whether the statements were made in public view and whether the accused had any intention to insult or humiliate the complainant. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Pradnya Pradnya Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare & anr. v/s State of Pradeep Kenkare & anr. v/s State of Pradeep Kenkare & anr. v/s State of 3 Maharashtra, Maharashtra, Maharashtra, reported in 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 431 reported in 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 431 reported in 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 431 and in the case of Ms.Sarita Shyam Dake v/s Sr. Police Ms.Sarita Shyam Dake v/s Sr. Police Ms.Sarita Shyam Dake v/s Sr. Police Inspector Inspector Inspector & ors. & ors. & ors., delivered in Writ Petition No.1746 of 2004 by the Division Bench of this Court do not aid the petitioner. In the case of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare & Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare & Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare & anr. anr. anr. v/s State of Maharashtra, v/s State of Maharashtra, v/s State of Maharashtra, the F.I.R. did not mention the two ingredients which are essential to constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act and, therefore, the F.I.R. was quashed. In the case of Ms.Sarita Ms.Sarita Ms.Sarita Shyam Dake v/s Sr.Police Inspector & ors. Shyam Dake v/s Sr.Police Inspector & ors. Shyam Dake v/s Sr.Police Inspector & ors., again the Court found that the complaint does not disclose that the words which were uttered by the accused, were in any manner visible or audible to a third party. These factors are not present in the case before me. Both the complaint and the F.I.R. disclose, prima facie, that the abusive words were uttered in public view. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 4. Writ petition rejected.