JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. By way of this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the criminal complaint bearing C. R. No. II – 10 of 2019 registered with Ranpur Police Station under Sections 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(r) and 3(2) (va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, “the Atrocities Act”).

2. The applicant states that he is the Sarpanch of Village : Aniyadi Kathi, Taluka : Ranpur, District : Botad and that respondent No.2-original complainant is his political rival. In order to harass the applicant, the impugned complaint has been filed. The applicant states that the respondent complainant has committed various acts, which are detrimental to the public health of villagers and which have violated the rights of the villagers. The applicant alleges that the respondent-complainant had procured the survey details of the village and had utilized the water for agricultural work in his own field. The applicant, being the Sarpanch, had confronted him about his illegal act. Thus, keeping the grudge, the complaint has been filed mainly because the respondent complainant is his political rival and secondly, the applicant had confronted him about his illegal act; and thirdly, the respondent-complainant wanted to instill fear amongst the villagers by lodging the complaint so that he could carry on with his illegal activities.

3. Learned advocate Mr. V.K. Anadjiwala for the applicant submits that the alleged act has not occurred in the presence of the respondent-complainant. The ingredients to attract the offence under the Atrocities Act are not attracted in the present case. No offence has been committed in the presence of the respondent-complainant nor in public view or in a public place. The impugned complaint has been filed on hearsay basis. He states that no such incident has even occurred. Only to exert pressure on the applicant being the Sarpanch of the village and to create an atmosphere of fear, the impugned complaint has been filed.

4. The facts as narrated in the impugned complaint suggests that on 21.01.2019 at about 10:00 am, some officers from the Taluka Panchayat, Ranpur had come to Jilla Panchayat, Botad for carrying out survey of the toilets of Gram Panchayat of Village : Aniyari Kathi. The applicant, who happened to be the Sarpanch of the village, along with the Talati of the village and some village elders, had accompanied them in the team during the examination of the toilets. The team returned at around 1:00 pm and thereafter, the officers left the village. It is alleged that thereafter, Mehrubhai Dudabhai Gohil and the respondent-complainant were present near the Gram Panchayat and Mehrubhai Dudabhai Gohil allegedly told the applicant that his wife Santuben, being the member of the Gram Panchayat, ought to have been a member of the team during the inspection, to which, the applicant replied that survey was conducted in the presence of Dahyabhai Badhabhai. Mehrubhai Dudabhai Gohil, therefore, questioned the applicant as to why he took Dahyabhai Badhabhai in the team. It is alleged that thereafter, at about 1.30 pm., the respondent-complainant came to the Panchayat and questioned the applicant as to why he had not kept the wife of Mehrubhai Dudabhai Gohil, being a Member of the Panchayat, in the team. At that time, the applicant abused him by his caste and insulted him. It is alleged that on 22.01.2019, at about 3:00 pm, Vanraj Roopsingbhai Rajput met him and informed that the applicant has threatened by his life.

5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Trivedi contended that the first incident may be considered to have occurred in presence of the Talati-cum-Mantri in the Panchayat office and thus, would be a public place.

6. The whole tenor of the complaint does not suggest as to what was the casteist remark/s that was allegedly made by the applicant at the respondent-complainant. Furth