1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.899 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for Petitioner, Smt. B.R.Khekale, APP for Respondent No.1. Shri P.S.Shinde, Advocate, holding for Shri Joydeep Chatterji Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. This is a writ petition filed by accused persons in CR No.24 of 2007 registered with Manwat Police Station for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet in R.C.C. No.75 of 2009 pending in the court of learned J..F.C., Manwat. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the offence under the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2 1989 (shortly stated "the said Act") is wrongly registered against them, even though the offence was not committed in public view. In support of the proposition that unless the offence is committed in public view, there cannot be prosecution for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act and, therefore, the charge sheet be quashed sofar as offence under the said Act is concerned, learned Advocate for the petitioners relied upon three authorities. 4. Firstly, Advocate for Petitioner relied upon the case of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare vs. State of Maharshtra, 2005 All MR (Cri.) 1948. In that case, it is observed in paragraph 8 that the incidence of insult or intimidation has to occur in a place accessible to and in the presence of the public. Otherwise it cannot be said that the person has committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. 3 5. Same view is reiterated in the case of Balu Bajirao Galande vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 ALL MR (Cri.) 3197. In the said case,it is held the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present (however small number it may be) should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. Persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. 6. The third case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is P.B. Shah vs Prabhu Mahadeo Kodate 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 2520. In that case, it is laid down that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act must be within the public view. Obviously, public view would mean where members of the public are able to hear the insults or see the intimidation. 4 7. In the present case, complaint is lodged by one Bajirao Jogdand on 27.7.2009 stating that on 26.7.2009 at about 7 to 7.30 p.m., Bhanteji Shashankirti came to his house and told him that while in the afternoon he was going to Zadegaon, two persons abused him over his caste. Thereafter, Bhanteji went to Budha Vihar. Thereafter, seven persons came and started enquiring where were Bhanteji and Bajirao. Fearing that accused would beat him, Bajirao ran away and when he came back at about 8.00 p.m., his mother Janabai told him that she was beaten and injured with stone and was also abused over caste. It is alleged that the accused uttered that "Maharde" became arrogant and their houses should be outside the villages and should be burnt. So, Bajirao Jogdand went to Manwat Police Station and lodged complaint which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 452 of I.P.C., under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled 5 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, so also under Section 3 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 8. Police investigated the matter. Janabai was sent for medical examination. There is a letter sent to Medical Officer by Police Station Officer, P.S. Manwat. There is also spot panchanama which shows that the house of the complainant is adjacent to the road. There are houses on all sides of the house. Statements of various persons are recorded. From statement of Bhante Shashankirti it appears that he had given information about the incident to Bajirao and also about incident which took place at the house of Bajirao. Statement of Janabai, who is eye witness, indicates that after Bhanteji Shashnkirti informed her about the incident at about 7 to 7.30 p.m., petitioners and one more accused came to the house of the complainant and accused Kailas 6 Sonar entered her house and asked where were Bajirao and Bhanteji. He also saids that "Mahars" have become arrogant; their houses should be outside the village and their houses should be burnt. Accused Kailas Sonar is also alleged to have abused Janabai and beat her. Bajirao had ran away fearing beating. It is mentioned by Janabai that the incident was seen by several persons from the village. There is also statement of Priyanka Jogdand who appears to be daughter of Bajirao Jogdand. She stated that several people from the village saw the incident of insult and beating. Statement of Jyoti Somnath Dhage, Rukhminbai Tukaram Dhage, Shantabai Dagadu Dhage and Yashodabai Dhuraji Dhage, who appear to be neighbourers, are recorded. They had gathered on the spot and claimed to have heard abuses and seen the beating. 9. In my considered opinion, only after evidence is recorded it can be appreciated whether the incident had or 7 had not taken place in public view and no member other than Bajirao's family had witnessed the incident. The statements recorded by the police, which are on record, indicate that the neighbourers had gathered and heard abuses, insults and threats given. 10. In the circumstances, present writ petition has no merits and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. Writ Petition is, accordingly dismissed. Date:03/03/2010 pnd/criwp899.09 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)