The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the occurrence to take place in public view under section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the significance of judicial mind in order taking cognizance.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. By order dated 11.2.2013, the O.P.no.2 was called upon and the requisites were filed and pursuant thereto notices were issued, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of the O.P.No.2. From the records it is not clear that whether the notices pursuant to the said order has been served upon the O.P.No.2 or not. However, while deciding the amendment petition by way of I.A. No.3096 of 2022 by which order taking cognizance was challenged and was allowed and amended the O.P.no.2 again directed to be served and accordingly the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the requisites and Office note suggest that the O.P.no.2 has personally received the notice and the said receiving is kept at Flag-A of the record. Today, when the matter was taken up nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.no.2 and that is how, this petition has been heard on merit.

3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mandu(Kujju) P.S. Case No.216 of 2012 dated 16.08.2012 registered for the offence under section 3(x)/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 including the order taking cognizance dated 24.2.2020, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ramgarh.

4. The FIR was registered alleging therein that as per the allegation made by one Binay Rabidas, posted as a Clerk in the Employees State Insurance Hospital, Ranchi Road, Kuju is that on 11.8.2012 both the petitioners came to the office at 12.30 p.m and they reached the office by some delay and they always use to come to the office with delay and used to mark attendance forcefully. It has been alleged that the petitioners used derogatory words against the employees, posted in the said Hospital by abusing them and in that context, they have also used the derogatory words against the informant namely Binay Rabidas and thus as per the said Act they have committed an offence and hence the instant FIR has been registered.

5. Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are doctors and at the relevant time they were posted in the E.S.I. Hospital at Ramgarh. He submits that the informant was working there in that hospital and due to certain differences the case has been filed falsely. He submits that cognizance has been taken by the learned court under section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He draws the attention of the Court to the said section and submits that the occurrence has not taken place in public view which is one of the essential ingredient for taking cognizance under that section. He further submits that there is no averment in the FIR that the petitioners were not belonging to SC/ST and to buttress his such argument, he relied in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 531. Paragraph no.6 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

“6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of the their caste. According to the basic ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant accused as not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting