1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused seeks to quash the proceedings in FIR No.270 of 2014 of Thorrur PS, Warangal District.

2. On the report given by one Jatoth Gutta of Kistuthanda Chinnavangara, belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the police registered FIR. The allegations are that in respect of lands acquired by his grand-father, the names of complainant and his two brothers were not recorded in revenue records and so, in order to request the accused who is the VRO of their village, to enter their names in the Pahanies, the complainant and his own brother—Jatoth Mallaiah went to the house of accused at about 7 AM on 07.10.2014 and requested the accused to enter their in the Pahanies. On that, accused replied that he cannot do that work and they have put up an application to MRO but the complainant and his brother importuned him. On that, it is alleged, the accused grew wild and abused them as —“Lambada Bastards why you are pestering me in spite of my repeated telling to you”.

Hence the complaint. Investigation is reported to be pending.

3 a) Denying the FIR allegations, learned counsel for petitioner/accused vehemently argued that even if the entire allegations are uncontroverted, they do not constitute any offence inasmuch as they would reveal that the accused has explained to them that he was not competent to enter the names of complainant and his brothers in the Pahanies and they have to put up application to MRO for consideration and in spite of it they annoyed with repeated requests and in such scenario even if he shouted on them, it cannot be said that he had any criminal intention to abuse them by caste to demean them. Since there is no intentional insult or intimidation, the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ((Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC & ST Act”) will not attract. In this context, he relied upon the following decision to buttress his argument that there must be requisite intention to insult the person by cast to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act.

Budapapv. State of A.P. 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 106 (AP).

b) Secondly and most importantly, he argued that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, still charge under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act cannot be maintainable in view of the fact that the alleged offence took place in the early hours of the day at the house of the accused which is neither a public place nor within public view. He contended that unless the offence is taken place within the public view accused cannot be held guilty. On this aspect he relied upon the following decisions.

1. D.Santosh Reddy v. S.H.O. of Shamshabad PS, Hyderabad (2012 (1) ALD (Crl.) 396 (AP).

2. V. Sudhakar v. R.Ram Mohan Rao (2012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 288 (AP).

He thus prayed to quash the proceedings.

4 a) Per contra, opposing the petition, learned counsel for 3rd respondent/complainant argued that a perusal of the FIR allegations would clearly show that accused had intentionally insulted the complainant by his caste and if really he were annoyed by the repeated requests of the complainant, he could have shouted at him in a different manner and there was no need of abusing him by his caste which reflects his intention to insult the complainant by his caste. He argued that in deciding a quash petition, the Court has to take the FIR allegations to be true on their face value and then only decide whether such allegations constitute any offence or not but at this stage the Court shall not make a rowing enquiry as to the veracity or otherwise of the FIR allegations. On this aspect he relied upon the decision reported in Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel (2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 882 (SC).

b) Secondly, he argued that though the offence was occurred in a private place, still it was within the public view and therefore, the offence is maintainable against the accused. He thus prayed to dismiss th