IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3574 OF 2010. Date:21.04.2010 Between:- Kore Prameela and others ..Petitioners/Accused And The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioners 1 to 3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) in Crime No.22 of 2010 of Pahadisharief Police Station of Cyberabad. The sixth respondent is the defacto complainant and she is Mandal Pradeshika Territorial Constituency Member. 2. Admittedly, there are land disputes regarding Sy.No.27 between N.Ravinder Reddy and A.Mallesh. The sixth respondent’s husband was supporting N.Ravinder Reddy in that dipsute. It is alleged that as husband of the sixth respondent was supporting N.Ravinder Reddy in the land dispute, the petitioners 1 to 3 came to the second respondent’s house and questioned her as to why they were supporting N.Ravinder Reddy and abused them in filthy language and also abused her in the name of her ‘Madiga’ caste. 3. It is contended that even as per allegations in the report, the offence is stated to have been committed at house of the defacto complainant and not at a public place having public view. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act reads as follows: “…….Internationally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”. On a reading of the said provision, it is evident that the place of offence need not be a public place. It can be any place, but that place must be within public view. It is not as if the offence took place inside house of the second respondent. F.I.R. is not ‘be all and end all’ of the prosecution case. It is not encyclopedia of the prosecution version. It is only a paper which puts criminal law machinery into motion. During investigation, the Investigating Officer will record statements of the victim and witnesses and will collect other evidence. Then only, it can be said that whether the offence took place in a place of public view or not. It is only when requirements of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are satisfied, then the Investigating Officer will charge sheet the accused. At this stage after registering the F.I.R., I do not find any reasons to intercept the investigation. 4. It is further contended that there are previous litigations not only in Criminal Court but also in writ proceedings. Even as per report of the defacto complainant, there are land disputes admittedly between N.Ravinder Reddy and Mallesh. This Court, at this stage and in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into truth or otherwise of allegations in the report. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 21st April 2010 AMD