The court clarified that for an offense under the Atrocities Act, public view requirements must be satisfied, and the failure to establish this led to discharge of the accused.

O R D E R

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is the complainant in SC No.764/2020, is aggrieved by the common order dated 20.07.2023 in CMP No.1216/2023 passed by the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , Mannarkkad.

2. The petitioner filed a complaint against the 2^nd respondent and another accused alleging offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 and under Section 420 IPC . The petitioner states that the police did not take any action and it was on the basis of a protest complaint that SC No.764/2020 was registered for the offences punishable under read with Section 34 and Section 3 (1)(s) of the , 1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989').

3. The 2^nd respondent filed CMP No.1216/2023 invoking Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The petitioner filed objections to the petition. According to the petitioner, the ingredients of the offences alleged were satisfied. The Special Court, however, by order dated 20.07.2023 found that there is no sufficient ground to proceed further against the accused and that they are entitled to discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

4. The counsel for the petitioner urged that the distinction between the expressions “public place” and “in any place within public view” has been elucidated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh v. State [(2008) 8 SCC 435]. Even if remark is made inside a building but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends), then also it will be an offence since it is in the public view.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident in question took place within public view and the prosecution has cited two witnesses who have allegedly seen the incident. Whether they are friends or relatives of the de facto complainant or persons who have got any affinity towards the de facto complainant or whether they could be considered as “members of the public” are questions to be decided in evidence. The materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused. In the circumstances, the court below committed a grave error in granting discharge to the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1^st respondent.

7. The case of the petitioner before the court below was that the 3^rd accused approached the petitioner with an information that immovable property of the other accused was available for sale. He made the petitioner to believe that the petitioner had valid title to the property. Based on that, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale and handed over ₹50,000/- towards sale consideration as advance. Later, the accused refused to execute sale deed stating that they don't have clear title. The accused had knowledge of the defective title. By entering into an agreement for sale of property without clear title, the accused have committed the offence under Section 420 IPC .

8. The petitioner further alleged that when the petitioner approached the accused on 30.06.2019 at the house of the accused, the 2^nd accused closed the gate and the accused called the caste name of the petitioner. The caste name was called with an intention to be heard by the public. Therefore, the accused have committed an offence under Section 3 (1)(s) of the Act, 1989.

9. The Special Court noted that the issue arises out of a contractual transaction. The Special Court noted that calling of caste name by the accused was not heard by any public. It was on the basis of those findings that the Special Court allowed the CMP and discharged the accused.

10. The argument of the petitioner is that in Annexure-

A1 complaint, the petitioner had specifically alleged that the accused called caste name of the petitioner with an intention that it be heard by others outside. Whether persons standing outside are members of the public is to be dec