THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4586 OF 2011 DATED: 05.07.2011 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in F.I.R.No.174 of 2011 of II Town police station, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. 2nd respondent, who is working as Executive Engineer in GVMC, gave a complaint against the petitioner, who is a Contractor doing the works of GVMC alleging the offences under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and Section 353 IPC, based on which F.I.R.No.174 of 2011 was registered by the II Town police, Visakhapatnam. In the complaint, 2nd respondent has stated that for the year, 2011-2012 the estimates of the operation of minor work of the pump house at Rajahmundry and Eleswaram were prepared only for Rs.43,00,000/ to avoid the excess expenditure and tenders were called accordingly as a result of which petitioner lost the opportunity to get the contract and bearing grudge, on 20.05.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., while the complainant was at work in his office, petitioner came to the office, entered the chamber of the complainant without permission and threatened the complainant to raise the estimates. It is further alleged that the petitioner-accused abused the complainant in the name of his caste and warned that he can see the end of the complainant as he has got 20 years of experience as Contractor. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused made attempt of physical assault on the complainant and one Ramesh Raju, another Contractor, and Joseph Immanuel, Assistant Engineer, who were in the adjacent room having witnessed the incident through glass window came to the rescue of the complainant. It is further stated that the incident took place in the office during working hours and in the presence of the staff and others and when the complainant came out of the chambers he informed to give report to the Chief Engineer. The accused, in the presence of several staff members, abused the complainant in the name of his caste using unparliamentarily words. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the incident, as narrated in the complaint, never took place and secondly even according to the complainant, the incident took place in his chambers and therefore it would not have public view and hence no offence is made out. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision reported in J.SUMANA v. ENDLURI ASEERWADAMMA AND ANOTHER [1], wherein it was held that no offence can be said to be committed under Section 3 (x) of the Act when the incident took place in the chambers of the complainant and when it was not in the public view. 5. A perusal of the contents of the complaint would disclose that though the incident has taken place in the chambers of the complainant, the same was to the view of others who were in the adjacent room, separated by a glass window. The names of the persons, who witnessed the incident and rushed into the chambers of the complainant to his rescue were also mentioned in the First Information Report. 6. Leaned counsel for the complainant would submit that the said witnesses have reiterated the same in the statements recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C., during the course of investigation. 7. In the complaint, it is however alleged that even after the complainant came out of the chambers and was proceeding to give a report to the Chief Engineer, the accused has again abused him in filthy language and in the name of his caste in the presence of several staff members. The said incident, according to the complainant, took place to the public view in the premises of the office. The truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the compliant cannot be gone into at this stage as the same has to be adjudicated upon at the appropriate stage, during the course of the trial. At this stage, when the complainant makes a specific allegation against the accused and attributes specific overt acts, prima facie attracting the offences alleged, it cannot be said that the complaint is an abuse of process of law. The matter is under investigation and it is stated that the statements of the witnesses named in the First Information Report is in support of the prosecution version. Be that as it may, the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint has to be ascertained only on regular trial when evidence is adduced by the prosecution and the same does not call for consideration at this stage. 8. Having regard to the serious nature of the offence alleged and the specific allegations made in the complaint against the accused, prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to quash the further proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. In the result, Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th July, 2011 Tsy [1] 2003 (1) ALD (CRL) 252 (AP)