- (1.) BY Court Heard Mr. A.K.Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 14/12/2000, passed in Complaint Case (C) No. 484/2000, whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been taken against the petitioner. The fact, leading to filing of the case is that O.P. No. 2 lodged a complaint case alleging therein that the complainant having purchased a piece of land, constructed a house over it but some part of the land was encroached by the petitioners. When the complainant asked as to why they have done so, he was abused and assaulted by them and they also addressed him as 'DusadhHarijan'. Thereafter, they entered into the house and threw some household articles. The other day, they also abused him. On said allegations, complaint was lodged. Upon which, cognizance of the offences as aforesaid was taken, which is under challenge. Mr. A.K.Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complainant by putting allegations that the petitioners did abuse him to humiliate, did try to make out a case u/s 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act but no case is made out for the said offence under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as the occurrence is said to have taken place in a house and not within the public view or public hearing and if the alleged offence is not committed either within the public view or public hearing, no offence is made out. Therefore, the learned court below has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence either under Section 3 or Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the context of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, one needs to take notice of the provisions as contained particularly in Sections 3 (1) (x) and 4 of the Act, which reads as follows: "3. Punishment for offences of atrocities (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe (i)(ix)................ (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (xi)(xv) ............ 4. Punishment for neglect of duties. Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year." From perusal of the aforesaid provisions, particularly 3 (1) (x) of the Act, it does appear that if one intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he would be liable to be punished for the said offence provided the person aggrieved has been insulted or was intimidated with a view to humiliate him within the public view. In my view, there has been purpose to incorporate the words 'public view' which does suggests that if one is insulted or intimidate not in public view, then it would not be an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, rather the said offence would be attracted if a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is insulted or intimidated with a view to be humiliated within the public view or I can say within public hearing as even at a private place or a building, if a member of the Scheduled CAste or Scheduled Tribe is insulted or intimidated with a view to humiliate him, he can be brought within the ambit of the said provision provided such offence has been committed within the public view or within the public hearing. This view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of "Swaran Singh and othersvs. State through standing Counsel and another,[(2008) 8 SCC 435]", wherein it has been observed at paragraph 28 as under: ".... 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'...."
(3.) HERE, in the instant case, the petitioners have been alleged to have assaulted and abused the complainant inside the house and not within the public view. Therefore, offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, never gets attracted. Further, no allegation seems to be there for committing the offence under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, the Court below has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, that part of the order dated 14/12/2000, under which, cognizance of the offences under Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is taken, is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is partly allowed.;