Sanjay K Agrawal, J.

The petitioner herein against whom a first information report (FIR) under Crime No.41/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989') read with Sections 294 & 506 of the IPC stood lodged and thereafter after due investigation, he has also been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, seeks quashment of the FIR as well as the charge-sheet filed against him by way of this petition inter alia contending that the alleged offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 was not even alleged to have been committed within the public view and the offence under Section 294 of the IPC is not even said to have been committed in public place and offence under Section 506 of the IPC is non-cognizable offence and that cannot be investigated except by the order of the Magistrate by virtue of the provision contained in Section 155(2) of the CrPC, therefore, the FIR as well as the subsequently filed charge-sheet against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.

2. The petitioner on the relevant date i.e. 12-9-2012 was owner of M/s. Jhajhariya Nirmal Private Limited and was in the site of the construction work of the said company and on that day, complainant Dhanraj Sonwani along with nine other persons went to the petitioner seeking contribution for celebrating Vishwakarma festival. It is the case of the complainant/prosecution that instead of extending contribution for celebrating the festival, the present petitioner inquired the caste of the complainant and others, particularly of Dhanraj Sonwani and on being informed by him that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, the petitioner intentionally insulted the complainant with intent to humiliate that he is a member of Scheduled Caste on which complainant Dhanraj Sonwani reported to the police and FIR was registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294 & 506 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989. On 19-9-2012, statement of the complainant was recorded and thereafter, statements of nine other persons accompanying him were recorded within a day or two. Caste certificate of the complainant was seized on 19-9-2012 in which he was held to be belonging to notified Scheduled Caste and thereafter, on 30-7-2013, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and he was also released on bail.

3. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, (1992) Supp1 SCC 335, would submit taking the entire allegation made in the FIR and the chargesheet in their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner/accused, as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 even not alleged to have been committed in a place within the public view. Likewise, offence under Section 294 of the IPC has not been said to have been committed in public place and offence under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC is non-cognizable offence which cannot be inquired into without the order of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. Therefore, the FIR lodged and the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.

4. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 5, would submit that the prosecution has clearly established the offence committed by the petitioner who is not a member of Scheduled Caste, as the petitioner knowing fully well that the victim/belongs to Scheduled Caste, intentionally insulted and humiliated him and thus, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 has been committed by the petitioner in a place within the public view which is of paramount importance in order to attract Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. He would further submit that