IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43497 of 2007 1. SHIV KUMAR AGRAWAL S/o. Late Durga Datt Aggrawal 2. Raja Ram Jalan 3. Abhishek Jalan, both sons of Shiv Kumar Aggrawal, resident of villageRajiv Gandhi Chowk Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Munger Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anandi Paswan S/O. Late Shivnath Das resident of village Ballipur, P.S. Jamalpur, District Munger. ----------- 3 06/01/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite valid service of notice. The delayed charging of a mobile phone in pursuance of the purchase of a re-charge coupon attributable to a service provider B.S. N.L. alone led to opposite party no. 2 having an altercation with the petitioners who had provided him the re-charge voucher. This led to the institution of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 170 of 2006 under sections 323, 379, 341, 419, 420, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(X) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In so far as the allegations under the Penal Code are concerned, they are all compoundable under section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure either at the instance of the parties or with the leave of the Court, as the case may be. It is the further case of the petitioners that subsequently the service provider BSNL has confirmed that the re-charge voucher purchased by opposite party no. - 2 - 2 has, in fact, been honoured after delay and the value has been credited to the telephone account claimed by opposite party no. 2. This Court holds that these are aspects to be properly considered during the course of trial and cannot be conveniently gone into at this stage being issues of facts. The allegations under the later Act are of calling by caste name at the shop premises of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to persuade this Court that the occurrence was not in a public place and, therefore, did not attract section 3(X) of the Act. Section 3(X) of the Act reads as follows : “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” It needs no discussion or elaboration that a shop is a place within public view. A shop is a place accessible to anyone who wishes to enter the shop to either examine a good or purchase the goods. This Court, therefore, finds it difficult to accept the argument that the shop is not a place within public view. Any place where the public or part of the public has free and un-restricted access is within public view. To that extent this Court finds it difficult to interfere with the proceedings in complaint case no. 363-C of 2006. In conclusion, whether it be the offence under the Penal Code or the later Act, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere at this stage in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This application is dismissed but with the observation in - 3 - context of the provisions of the Penal Code, as mentioned above. (Navin Sinha, J.) AMIN