The inquiry under the SC/ST (POA) Act must be conducted by an officer of at least Deputy Superintendent rank, and the definition of 'public view' requires visibility to the public.

ORDER

1. The instant S.B. Criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 aggrieved from order dated 25.04.2022 in complaint case No. 20/2021 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Kota whereby complaint of appellant complainant was dismissed.

2. A complaint under Sections 336, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act was filed on 06.04.2021 with the allegation that on 24.03.2021 around 11.00P.M. accused called him and inquired about his brother Narendra but complainant had disconnected the call, thereafter, the accused respondent again called him and insulted complainant and his brother using casteist slur and abusive language. This conversation was recorded by the complainant and on the basis of conversation, he craved before learned trial Court for proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

3. Learned trial Court instead of forwarding this complaint to register a criminal case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., decided to record the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Gajendra Prajapati under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court has also called certain record from concerned police station Dadabari, Kota. After hearing the complainant, the complaint was dismissed, hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that as per Rule 7 of SC/ST (POA) Rules, any inquiry can only be conducted by any officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or a superior official but here in this case, inquiry was conducted by a Police Constable having no authority to conduct inquiry. He further submitted that respondent accused was bound under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. which clearly indicated that respondent-accused had committed offence as alleged by complainant. He further submitted that learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence recorded on oath of complainant and the witnesses in right perspective as they remained thoroughly uncontradicted. He further submitted that there was no material to discard the allegation as levelled by appellant-complainant against the respondent. He further submitted that at the stage of issuing process, learned trial court was required to look into prima facie case and nothing more than that. He further submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the proper process had decided to dismiss the complaint filed by the appellant, and learned trial court was not required to meticulously weigh evidence at the stage of cognizance, therefore his appeal be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor had opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for appellant. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that the matter is false and concocted. He further submitted that in complaint itself, nowhere it was mentioned that the entire conversation was heard by Gajendra Prajapati whereas after making improvement in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that entire conversation was heard by Gajendra Prajapati. He further submitted that the conversation on phone is not an insult or act in "public view" as defined under Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1989. He further submitted that there was a financial transaction between respondent and brother of complainant and complainant in connivance with his brother had filed a false complaint against the respondent so that his brother can avoid repayment of borrowed money. He further submitted that admittedly, no one heard the conversation between two individuals and on the basis of telephonic conversation no cognizance can be taken by any court. He further referred the inquiry conducted by police constable and submitted that no FIR was registered and Rule 7 of SC/ST (POA) Act applies only when an investigation is conducted. He further submitted that learned trial court had given cogent reasons while refusing to take cognizance and there are no grounds to interfere in the order of