1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2112 OF 2009 Date of decision: 11/9/2009 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes/No. may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see Yes/No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? Yes/No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Yes/No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important Yes/No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/ 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2112 of 2009 1. Bhausaheb Yadavrao Bankar, Age 74 yrs, Occu: Agriculture, r/o. Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Sunita Babasaheb Bankar, Age 28 yrs, Occu. household r/o. Ambelohal, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra. 2. Police Inspector, Police Station, MIDC Waluj, District. Aurangabad. 3. Gautam Murlidhar Jadhav, Age 22 yrs, Occu. Business, r/o. Ambelohal Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.D.Hiwarekar, Adv., for the applicants. Mrs. B.R.Khekale, APP for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R.V.Gore, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ... CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 11/9/2009 *** 3 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Counsel for respective parties. Rule. With the consent of Counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 2. The applicants/accused seek to quash FIR lodged at MIDC, Waluj Police Station, vide Crime No.II-17/2009 dt.18.6.2009 for an offense under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The Counsel for the accused/applicant submits, reading the FIR, it is manifest that it was not in public view, therefore, no infraction of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 4. The second limb of the submission of Counsel was that, it was, indeed, to pre-empt the action of the present accused/applicant, as there was theft of lemon from the agricultural field by the complainant and the matter was to be reported by the accused/applicant to the Police. 5. At this stage of the matter, I find that the objection that the incident has not taken place in public view is difficult to digest as the complainant allegedly was in a process of plying his motor cycle, it was naturally at the 4 road, since he wanted to move towards Bus Stand and when he was near the house of Bhausaheb Bankar, the accused Sunita was standing there. She called him by name and, thereafter, alleged incident has taken place where the accused allegedly abused in filthy language and in the name of the caste abused said complainant Gautam. 6. The Counsel for the accused took recourse to the judgment in the matter of Balu s/o Bajirao Galande Vs. State of Maharashtra and another dt.13th April, 2006, reported in 2006 ALL MR (CRI) 3197) wherein Brother Judge has taken a view that the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present (however small number it may be) should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. 7. The Counsel for the original complainant Gautam took recourse to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Swaran Singh and others Vs. State through Standing Counsel and another ( 2009) ALL MR (CRI) 260 (S.C.) wherein the Lordships have dealt with specifically about what the public view and public place means, in paragraph no.28, which reads as under: 5 "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a `Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression `place within public view' with the expression `public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." In the light of the observation of the Apex Court, the observation of the learned Brother Judge, in the matter of Balu s/o Bajirao Galande will not be available to be coined. 6 8. Another limb of submission that in order to wreck the effects of the earlier incident, false prosecution is initiated by said Gautam may be correct but it will have to be independently decided at the stage of trial and not now. In the situation, the request to quash the proceedings cannot be accepted. Criminal Application dismissed. Rule discharged. Time to surrender upto 30th Sept.,2009 granted. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/2112-09crapl