The court clarified the interpretation of 'within public view' in the context of the Atrocities Act, holding that a place can be considered 'within public view' even if it is a private place, provided it is visible to someone from outside the boundary wall.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in Special S.C.No.61 of 2020 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of the offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner herein is sole accused in the Special Sessions Case.

2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 506-II IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015(for short, ‘the Act, 2015’). The allegations, in brief, in the charge sheet may be stated as follows:

2nd respondent/defacto complainant and the petitioner/accused worked as Teachers in Z.P.H. School, Kothapalem, Gopalapatnam. Husband of 2nd respondent died in the year 2009 and taking advantage of the same, the petitioner developed acquaintance with her and promised her that he would look after her and her daughter well and assisted them in their needs. He also promised that he would marry her by giving divorce to his wife and induced her that he would provide job to her daughter. When 2nd respondent believed him completely, he exploited her sexually and developed sexual relationship with her. He used to visit house of 2nd respondent in night times and have sexual intercourse with her. He frequently took her and her daughter outside in his car.

It is further alleged that 2nd respondent got huge amount as her share from the property of her father and on that, the petitioner, with an evil intention to cheat her, promised her that he would provide job to her daughter in Railways and took an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs through one Chilla Subramanyam. Later, he also promised that he would purchase one house to her and took an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs and also took Rs.9.00 lakhs from her to attend personal needs, and in all, he took an amount of Rs.19.00 lakhs from her and cheated her and not providing job to her dauther or not purchased the house. It is further alleged that when 2nd respondent pressurized him for job of her daughter, he showed two letter heads in the name of Sri K.Haribabu, M.P., Visakhapatnam and induced her that he was trying to get the job. When she asked petitioner to return the money as he failed to provide the job or purchase the house, he abused her in the name of her caste as SC mala and beat he with hands and threatened her with dire consequences not to inform the matter to anybody.

Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent, police registered a case in crime No.308 of 2019 of Airport police station, Visakhapatnam city, and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, still the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Act, 2015 would not attract for the reason that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in a house, which would not come within the purview of ‘public view’, as is evident from the charge sheet. She contends that in view of the same, continuation of the impugned proceedings as against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for 2nd respondent submitted that even accepting the accusations to be true, if any offence occurs within four walls in the presence of outsiders, the same would amount to an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act, 2015, and the contentions that are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial.

5. This Court perused the record.

6. Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Act, 2015 reads thus:

“Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Sch