IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.16800 of 2007 Between: Kandi Srinivas Goud. … Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt. B.S.Radhika. Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Home for R.1 and R.2. Sri Prakasam for Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in registering crime under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) as illegal. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 belongs to Scheduled Caste. They married eventually against the wishes of the parents of the petitioner. Their marriage ran into rough weather. This lead to altercations between the petitioner and his family members on the one side, and respondent No.3 and her parents on the other. In this background, the complaint of respondent No.3 given to respondent No.2 was registered as FIR in Crime No.840 of 2005 on 1-10- 2005 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Respondent No.2 filed charge sheet against the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, questioning the criminal proceedings initiated against him. Heard Smt.B.S.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri Prakasam, learned counsel, representing S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, for respondent No.3; and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet, even taken on their face value, shows that they do not indicate commission of any offence and, hence, the entire criminal proceedings registered against the petitioner and pending before the Court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate at Saroornagar, Cyberabad, are required to be quashed. Seriously opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government pleader for Home and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the charge sheet filed in the instant case reveals commission of offences, both under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, and, hence, the proceedings are not liable for being quashed. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. In the complaint filed by respondent No.3, which is some what lengthy, she narrated the instances leading to her marriage with the petitioner and the differences between them and their family members and the alleged harassment which she is subjected to at the hands of the petitioner and his parents. The proximate events preceding giving of the complaint and stated therein may be relevant to be extracted hereunder: “ In June once my father, his friends J.Srinivas s/o.Yogaiah & Manyam Sharma, Nazir came to our house, at that time my mother-in-law was also present with us. On the arrival of my father and his friends both my husband and mother-in-law started abusing me and my father the name of caste again and insulted us. During June Month, my husband mounted lot of pressure on me to sign on consent paper for second marriage & on mutual consent “Divorce papers” which was disagree. Finally he left the house and did not turn up till date. Meanwhile, on 17th July, 2005 I blessed with a female baby. When I went to my mother-in-law to enquire where about my husband she abused me again. Recently I came to know that he is trying to approach Court for divorce. Prior to marriage my husband assured me to take Australia where he was working earlier and promised me to give a luxurious life. But, after marriage he changed a lot under his mother influence. My husband and his mother harassing me as I belongs to S.C. Community”. As could be seen from the above reproduced portion of the complaint, it is mentioned by her that in June once her father and his friends, by name, J.Srinivas s/o.Yogaiah, Manyam Sarma and Nazeer, came to the house, where the petitioner and respondent No.3 were living at that time; that her mother-in-law was also present with them; and that on the arrival of her father and his friends, both the petitioner and her mother-in-law started abusing respondent No.3 and her father in the name of caste and insulted them. In the charge sheet it is stated as under: “On 5-6-2005 at 7 PM LW.2, father of LW.1, and his friends i.e., LWs.4 & 5 went to the apartment of LW.1 and A.1. At that time A.1 and A.2 abused the LWs.1 and 2 in filthy language in the name of their Madiga caste demanding to agree for divorce and thus insulted them before LWs.4 & 5. Thereafter A.1 deserted the LW.1 and left the house and since then he did not turn up. On 17-7-2005 LW.1 gave birth to a female baby”. With respect to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint and the charge-sheet read as a whole do not constitute any offence, I am not in agreement with this contention to the extent it relates to the alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC. If the allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet are read as a whole, in my considered view they, prima facie, indicate commission of an offence under Section 498-A IPC. Hence, to the extent of registration of the criminal case under Section 498-A IPC, the petitioner failed to make out a case for quashing. As regards the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is necessary to consider the said provision, which reads as under: “3. Punishment for offence of atrocities- (1) whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (i) to (ix) … … (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (xi) to (xv) … … shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine”. In order to constitute an offence under the above mentioned provision, the following ingredients are required to be satisfied: (a) A person must insult or intimidate another person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; (b) such insult or intimidation must be with intent to humiliate a person belonging to the said category; and (c) it shall take place within public view. As noted hereinabove, the complaint of respondent No.3 is too vague and generic with respect to the specific incident. No date was given in the complaint. Further the allegation shows that the alleged incident took place in the house where the petitioner and her husband were living. There is no allegation that the petitioner abused respondent No.3 and her father intentionally. In the complaint there is also no allegation that the offence was committed within public view. Even in the charge sheet, the allegation that the offence was committed within public view is absent except to the extent that it happened in the presence of LWs.4 and 5. On a careful consideration of the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet, I am of the view that even if the allegations contained in the complaint and the charge sheet are accepted on their face value, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is made out. The background in which the complaint is filed clearly suggests that respondent No.3 tried to take undue advantage of the provisions of the Act to convert the matrimonial dispute into the one arising under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in E.Tirupem Reddy Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandyal and others[1] and contended that the question - whether the offensive words were uttered within a public view - is a question of fact which would be decided during the trial and that the Division Bench also held that wherever public is watching and wherever an incident is viewed by members of the public, it is “public view”, whether it is a private place or a public place. Neither in the complaint nor in the charge sheet is there any whisper that the incident, which allegedly took place in a private place, was watched by any member from the public. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.3 termed LWs.4 and 5, the friends and father of respondent No.3, as members of public, I am not inclined to accept this contention. The friends of father of respondent No.3 can, by no stretch of imagination, be treated as members of public, because they accompanied her father evidently to make the warring parties to arrive at a truce. Having critically examined the case holistically, I am convinced that the present complaint to the extent of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act constitutes abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed. For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal proceedings to the extent of charge against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are quashed. It shall necessarily mean that the proceedings in respect of Section 498-A IPC shall go on. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 04-4-2008 MNR [1]) 2006 CRI. L.J.1606