The main legal point established is that for an offence under the SC ST Act, the alleged acts must occur in a place within public view, as per the judicial pronouncements and legal provisions cited.

JUDGMENT

G.A.SANAP, J.

1. In this application, the applicant/accused is seeking the relief to quash and set aside the First Information Report No.174/2020 registered at Dharni Police Station District Amravati for the offences punishable under Ss. 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC ST Act).

2. The First Information Report was registered on the basis of the report lodged by respondent No.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22/2/2020 at about 02.00 Hrs. while the respondent No.2 was cooking, there was a leakage from the gas cylinder and due to the leakage there was a fire. The fire was extinguished with the help of Bhaiji Gas Agency. Thereafter, the gas cylinder and regulator was deposited with the gas agency for replacement. It is stated that the respondent No.2 visited the gas agency on number of occasions, but she did not receive the gas cylinder and regulator. On 15/3/2020 in between 09.00 Hrs to 10.00 Hrs. she went to the office of gas Agency and met the applicant/accused. She demanded the gas cylinder and the regulator. The applicant got annoyed and abused her in the name of her caste. The actual abuses in Marathi stated in the report reads thus:-

...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

On 17/3/2020, on the report of the respondent No.2, the crime as above came to be registered.

3. It is the case of the applicant that crime registered against him is false and frivolous. No incident as narrated by the respondent No.2 occurred. He is not the owner of the gas agency. His brother is the owner of the gas agency. He is an advocate by profession. It is submitted that no offence is made out against him on the basis of the facts stated in the report as well as on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. It is his case that according to respondent No.2, the incident took place in the cabin. There was no witness to the incident. It is stated that therefore, the basic ingredient of Sec. 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC ST Act that the act contemplated in this sec. must be committed in any place within public view has not been made out. He, therefore, prayed that the prosecution initiated against him needs to be quashed.

4. The Investigating Officer has filed the reply and reiterated the facts stated in the First Information Report. Besides, it is contended that during the course of the investigation, the statements of the witnesses have been recorded. The CCTV footage has been collected from the place of the incident. The investigation is complete in all respect. The brother of the applicant is the owner of the gas agency. It is the case of the prosecution that material collected during the investigation is sufficient to establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime.

5. The respondent No.2 though served in this proceedings has failed to appear before the Court.

6. We have heard Mr. P.R. Agrawal, learned Advocate for the applicant/accused and Mr. M.J. Khan, learned APP for the State. We have perused the record and proceedings and particularly the case diary of the crime.

7. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there are no witnesses to the incident, which according to the respondent No.2 occurred inside the cabin. In the submission of learned Advocate, the basic ingredient of Sec. 3(1)(r) and (s) that the act contemplated therein must take place in any place within the public view has not been made out. Learned Advocate for the applicant took us through the relevant material to contend that the perusal of the same material at its face value does not make out the offence. Learned Advocate in order to substantiate his submission has placed reliance on more than one judicial pronouncements, to which may refer in the later part of the judgment.

8. Learned APP submitted that alleged incident occurred inside the cabin. Learned APP took us through the spot panc