HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1406 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner allegedly committed the oﬀence under Section 3(i)(ix)(SIC) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short, the Act). The petitioner seeks for quashment of the First Information Report in Crime No.19 of 2010 of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad. 2. Smt V. Poornasree, learned counsel representing the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge sheet was already ﬁled and that the same however was not numbered on account of stay in this case. Where the charge sheet has not been numbered, this petition certainly can be continued as it is still in the stage of First Information Report. 3. I may make it clear at the outset that although the First Information Report was registered under Section 3(i)(ix) of the Act, the F.I.R was in fact under Section 3(i) (x) of the Act. The oﬀence alleged against the petitioner is that he abused the 2nd respondent with reference to his community. Such action on the part of the petitioner would be an oﬀence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act and not under Section 3(i)(ix) of the Act. I, therefore, assume that the FIR was under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. 4. Sri M.K. Viswanath Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prima facie the oﬀence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act has not been made out. He drew my attention to the allegations of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is working as H.R.D Manager with M/s. Rane Engine Valve Limited, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent joined as an apprentice with M/s. Rane Engine Valve Limited. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that after the 2nd respondent completed one year apprenticeship, he was not conﬁrmed as an employee and was directed to obtain a diploma and that when the 2nd respondent again approached the petitioner after he obtained diploma, the petitioner allegedly abused the 2nd respondent touching upon his caste. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner is not a member of the scheduled castes. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very ingredients under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act have not been made out from the complaint. He placed reliance upon Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P., [1]. The Supreme Court, in that case arising from the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that where the complaint did not allege that the accused is not member of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes and that he intentionally humiliated the petitioner in public view, the ingredients of the oﬀence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act would not be made out. On the strength of this decision, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that where the 2nd respondent did not allege that the petitioner was not a member of the scheduled castes, the very complaint is not maintainable. It may be noticed that it is not the case of the petitioner that he is a member of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. Evidently, the petitioner is not a member of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Where he is not a member of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, I am afraid that this decision has no application. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that to constitute the oﬀence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, it should occur in any place within the public view. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR does not show that the oﬀence occurred in public view and that the petitioner intentionally insulted or intimidated the 2nd respondent with an intention to humiliate the 2nd respondent and that consequently the oﬀence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act is not made out. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon J. Sumana v. Endluri Aseerwadamma[2]. In that case, the petitioner allegedly abused an employee in the chambers of the petitioner. The High Court held that the Chambers was not a public place and that the oﬀence under Section 3(i) (x) of the Act was not made out. The High Court observed in that case: “Having given serious consideration to the issue, I am of the view that the contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be countenanced for the simple reason the very Section itself is speciﬁc that the insult or intimidation should have taken place in public view. It need not be a public place, it could also be a private place. The intention of the Parliament was very clear that this insult or intimidation should have been caused in a place within the public view. If it is committed in any place which is not within the public view, it would not be treated as an offence.” 8. The view of the High Court in that case is that if the oﬀence did not occur in a public place within the public view, it would not be an oﬀence under Section 3(i) (x) of the Act. Even this Court held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Unionof India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas[3] that the oﬀence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act should occur in public view and that unless the oﬀence is committed in public view, Section 3(i)(x) of the Act would not be attracted. In view of these three decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the oﬀence did not occur in public gaze, the offence is not made out. 9. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The words used in Section 3(i) (x) of the Act are that the incident should occur in any place within the public view. As already pointed out, it was not stated by the 2nd respondent that the incident occurred within the public view. 10. That apart, the oﬀence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act can occur when the insult was with an intention to humiliate a member of the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes. Such an allegation was also not made against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. Viewed in any angle, the oﬀence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act has not been made out. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR is liable to be quashed. 11. As already pointed out, where the charge sheet is not numbered, the case is still at the FIR stage. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.19 of 2010 of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad. __________________ K.G. SHANKAR,J Date:16.11.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1406 of 2010 Date:16.11.2011. Gk. [1] 2008 AIR SCW 6901 [2] 2003(1) ALD Criminal 252 (AP) [3] 2000 (5) ALT 602