JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant is the Headmistress in the Little Star School located at Gayatri Hills, Yousufguda, Hyderabad has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 2127 of 2006.

3. It may be pertinent to mention that her husband Mohd. Samiuddin and the Appellant are being prosecuted for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short `the 1989 Act').

4. The Appellant filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 50 of 2006, Police Station Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has declined to quash the proceedings.

5. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

A complaint was filed against the Appellant and her husband Mohd. Samiuddin on 09.02.2006 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, which reads as under:

I am to inform you that just besides my house a building bearing No. 8-2-293/82/B/60, in 1+3 storied building, a school is being run from 1 to 10th class. I have informed the management of the school with regard to sound pollution. I have also submitted representation to the DEO, Hyderabad. Since the authorities have not taken any action in this regard, I approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., and obtained an interim order on 03.10.1995. While the DEO trying to implement the interim orders, the Little Star School management, Gayathri Hills, has created more sound pollution. When we were not able to stay at our houses due to sound pollution, we invited the press people and expressed our grievances on 08.02.2006. The same news was published in the Newspapers on 09.02.2006. After reading the news, the School management, Smt. Asmatunnisa and her husband namely Md. Samiuddin came to my house at 9.00 a.m., when I was not there. Md. Samiuddin abused in filthy language by naming caste and asked my wife, R. Sridevi, without even looking that she is a lady, that where did she sent me and also said that "Aa Lambadodu", "let him come home today we will settle the matter with him." Smt. Asmatunnisa also abused my wife. Smt. Anuradha, who is staying opposite to my house was the eye witness for the incident.

The significant part of this complaint is that the offending words were admittedly spoken by Mohd. Samiuddin, the husband of the Appellant. He abused Sridevi's husband in filthy language by naming caste and said that "AA LAMBADODU", "let him come home today we will settle the matter with him." At that time, admittedly Sridevi's husband was not present.

6. The Appellant has also been implicated because she had accompanied her husband to the house of the complainant. Admittedly, the Appellant did not utter offending words. It would be relevant to set out relevant provisions of law as under:

7. Section 3 Sub-section (1) Sub-section (x) of the 1989 Act is reproduced as under:

3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheuled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-

x x x 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;

8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that:

A. According to the complaint, no offence under the aforesaid section can be made out against the Appellant because the ingredients of the offence are not made out. In the complaint so called offending words were not even attributed to the Appellant. It is alleged that the Appellant merely accompanied her husband and the offending words were spoken by the husband of the Appellant, therefore, the Appellant in this appeal by no stretch of imagination can be held guilty of the offence under the Section 3(1)(x) of