The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the expression 'public view' in Section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, emphasizing the requirement of independent and impartial public persons and the need for a case-specific analysis of the facts and circumstances.

( 1 ) THIS reference has been made consequent upon a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the expression public view in Section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act or SC/st Act ), in the Division Bench of this Court, consisting of hon ble Mr. Justice B. A. Khan and Hon ble Mr. Justice V. S. Aggarwal (as His lordship then was), while hearing the petition seeking quashing of the First information Report (for short fir ) under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act against them. Brief resume of facts, necessary for appreciation of the controversy, are as follows:

( 2 ) PETITIONERS and complainants are neighbours residing in the same complex at Vikaspuri Extension, Delhi. On 14. 3. 2001 there was some dispute amongst them, which resulted in registration of two cross cases on 28. 3. 2001. One under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act against petitioners and other under Sections 354/34 of the Indian penal Code, against the complainant and some witnessesof earlier case. Prosecution case is that on 14. 3. 2001 Babu Lal (since deceased) resident of flat No. 2-A, Vikaspuri lodged a report to the police complainant that at about 7. 15 p. m. he was sitting in the adjoining flat No. 1a along with Rakesh Kumar, Dr. C. P. Kohli, Rakesh Nagpal, n. Kukreja and H. C. Saini residents of flat Nos. 1a to 6a, when Mrs. Veena Das, madhu Srivastava and Prem Shankar Madan residents of flat Nos. 3d, 3c and 3b of Pocket-A (petitioners 9,11 and 15), came there and called him "chura Chamar babu Lal Chura Chamar" (hereinafter "the offending words ) without any reason. This complaint was signed by Babu Lal, as well as four witnesses. On 15. 3. 2001 (next day), Babu Lai s wife Mrs. Meena Kumari lodged another report alleging that on 14. 3. 2001 at about 7. 20 p. m. , she was present at her flat, along with her children, when a group of 25-30 ladies came there and banged the door, saying "churi chamari come out of the house, you are not upto our standard and you cannot Jive in this block". She was humiliated and insulted on the basis of her caste; she became unwell and had to go to the doctor to take medicine. Surnames of fourteen ladies of that group were mentioned in the complaint, along with their respective flat numbers (petitioners 1 to 14 ). Babu Lal, thereafter sent reminders to the senior police officials on 15th and 20th March, 2001 praying for suitable action. On 28th and 29th march, 2001, he also sent a telegram and then a complaint to the Commissioner of police, alleging that he was being pressurised to withdraw his complaint and was threatened of false implication in some cases.

( 3 ) ON 19. 3. 2001, Mrs. Prabha Malhotra, Veena Das, Anita Gupta and Madhu srivastava (petitioner Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 11) had also given a report to the police, alleging that on 14. 3. 2001 they had gone to the house of Babu Lal, for collecting monthly subscription, as he was not paying the same for the past few months; Babu lal came out in underwear and at his asking they went inside the house where they found Mr. Kohli, Nagpal and Saini (three of the witnesses mentioned in Babu Lai s complaint, referred above), taking liquor. It is alleged that Babu Lal held Veena Das from her blouse, laughed and started pulling her towards him; when Mrs. Srivastava came to her rescue, Nagpal pushed her towards him saying "it was a good piece; kohli then pushed Prabha Malhotra and started kissing the complainant.

( 4 ) ON the above three reports, on 28. 3. 2001, two cases were registered at Police station Tilak Nagar. The first case under Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act on the reports of babu Lal dated 14. 3. 2001 and his wife Meena Kumari dated 15. 3. 2001 against the petitioners vide FIR No. 14/2001 which is sought to be quashed and the second under Sections 354/34, IPC on the report of petitioners 6,9 and 11 against Babu Lal and the witnesses mentioned in his complaint vide FIR No. 144/2001. Fiftee