HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.3836 of 2011 ORDER:- Petitioners herein are A.1 to A.4 in Crime No.176 of 2011 of Shadnagar P.S. They filed this petition to quash the said F.I.R. 2. The offences alleged are those punishable under Section 323 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. It is represented that petitioners 3 and 4 also belong to Scheduled Tribe community and therefore the Act is not applicable to them. So far as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned it is seen that there is a land dispute between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant and the incident is said to have occurred in connection with a dispute about the possession of the land. A perusal of the F.I.R shows that there are definite allegations so far as first petitioner is concerned. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, he is stated to be a Village Revenue Inspector and the learned counsel says that the second petitioner was not at all present at the scene and he has been falsely implicated. 4. The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in Asmathunnisa Vs State of A.P. i.e., Crl.A.No.766 of 2011 decided on 29.03.2011 in order to show that the allegations in the F.I.R even if believed do not attract Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The principle laid down in the said decision is that the abuse or insult contemplated under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act must occur or take place in public view or else the F.I.R is liable to be quashed. There is no dispute about this proposition. In this case the incident allegedly occurred at the fields of the de facto complainant and the matter is still pending investigation and the police have to ascertain whether public were present there or anybody else has seen it, as it is not necessary to mention in the F.I.R about all witnesses and those present. In the circumstances having regard to the facts of this case the above-cited decision cannot be applied to the case straight away when the matter is at investigation. Accordingly I find that there are no reasons to interfere in the matter and quash the F.I.R. 5. It may however be noted that the second petitioner is stated to be a Village Revenue Inspector and a public servant and the petitioners counsel says that such an Inspector cannot go to the scene to take cites with one party. It is also represented that if the second petitioner is arrested he will be immediately placed under suspension. In the circumstances having regard to the allegations made in the F.I.R against the second petitioner, the police may take a decision about his arrest only after the completion of investigation. In the meanwhile the second petitioner shall co-operate with the police in all respects with regard to completion of investigation. 6. With the above observation, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Dt.09-06-2011 Vjl