HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.10813 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are A.1 to A.3. They were charge sheeted for the offences under Section 447 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C as well as Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989( for short ‘the Act’). 2. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks for the quashment of P.R.C.No.37 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki, arising from crime No.52 of 2009 of Korisapadu Police Station, Prakasam District. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that owing to political rivalry at the time of election, the complaint was lodged and that as elders compromised between the accused- petitioners and the de facto complainant-second respondent and her husband, the petition deserves to be allowed. He also pointed out that the parties are present before the Court today. Be that as it is, it is not possible to compound the offences as one of the offences against the petitioners is under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act prima facie is not made out and that the Preliminary Register Case consequently deserves to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the complaint and pointed out that two complaints were filed by the second respondent and that a single F.I.R was issued on the basis of the two complaints. He took me through the various differences in the two complaints including the date of the complaint. He also pointed out that the endorsement by the S.I in one of the complaint reads that a case under Section 447 and 506 IPC was registered whereas endorsement in the other complaint reads that the offence was registered as a case in Crime No.52 of 2009 for the offence under Section 506 IPC with Section 447 IPC as an interpolation. I do not consider that these are the aspects which can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners also took me through the very allegations against the petitioners. The case of the second respondent is that on 27.05.2009, the petitioners entered the compound of the house of the second respondent and threatened to kill the husband of the second respondent on the ground that he was acting against the petitioners. It was also recited in the complaints that the petitioners threatened the second respondent that her husband would be killed. In the process, the caste of the husband of the second respondent was referred to by the accused. This is the reason why charge sheet was laid under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act apart from the offences under Section 447 and 506 IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners attacked the case with reference to Section 3(1)(x) of the Act on two counts. He contended that the alleged abuse was not made against the second respondent but was against her husband, according to the very complaint. In the complaint, it was stated that the accused questioned the conduct of the husband of the second respondent with reference to his caste. There was no whisper in either of the two complaints that the abuse was aimed at the second respondent. 7. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act reads as under: “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;” 8. Under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, what is punishable is insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate “a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe”. The provision does not read that the intentional insult or intimidation shall be against the individual who has complained. Thus when the husband of the second respondent is abused touching upon his caste, the petitioners cannot contend that the second respondent cannot lay the private complaint, as it is not the second respondent who was abused. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint does not reveal a prima facie case with reference to this aspect. 9. Smt. Zareena Afsar, learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submitted that there were two eye witnesses for the incident according to the charge sheet. I am afraid that the complaint does not speak about the presence of any of the witnesses for the incident. The offence allegedly occurred in the presence of the second respondent. Even her husband was not present at that time according to the complaint. That being so, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not prima facie made out as the incident has not occurred within the public view. Consequently, the Preliminary Register Case is liable to be quashed so far as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 10. Apart from the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the petitioners allegedly committed offences under Section 447 and 506 read with 34 IPC. These offences indeed are compoundable. Be that as it is, the complaint prima facie speaks about the commission of these offences by the petitioners. Therefore, I am not inclined to quash the Preliminary Register Case so far as the offences under Section 447 and 506 read with 34 IPC are concerned. The petitioners should approach the committal Court for appropriate relief in this regard, in the event the petitioners have compounded the case with the second respondent. 11. So far as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, is concerned, for the reasons set out, the offence prima facie has not been established and is accordingly liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The P.R.C.No.37 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Addanki so far as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed. The parties are at liberty to invoke Section 320 Cr.P.C so far as the other offences are concerned before the committal Court. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR 13.09.2012 VJL