ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet in S.C. No. 49 of 2021 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The petitioner is the Sole Accused in the F.I.R. in Crime No.422 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sec. 294(b), 341, 506(2), 326 of I.P.C. r/w Sec.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Subsequently, the charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in S.C. No.49 of 2021 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri and the same is pending. Now, the petitioner had filed this petition praying to quash the said charge sheet.

4. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

There was a love affair between one Renuka and Pandian and they eloped, left the family and got married on 21.09.2021 at Uthanapalli, Krishnagiri. As the family members not interested in their marriage, on the date of alleged occurrence on 21.09.2021, as per the complaint given by 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, the petitioner came to their house and shouted at him and abused him by mentioning his caste name and also scolded his son Ilanthamizhan, who said to have instigated for the said marriage and also attempted to attack him, thereby the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant had given the complaint. Based on that, F.I.R. in Crime No. 422 of 2021 was registered for the offence under Sec. 294(b), 341, 506(2), 326 of I.P.C. r/w Sec.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and subsequently, the charge sheet was filed, which was taken on file in S.C.No.49 of 2021. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner filed this petition praying to quash the said charge sheet.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he is no way connected with the alleged marriage of Pandian and Renuka. As a close family member of Renuka, he enquired about whereabouts of the said Renuka. Aggrieved over that, father of one Ilanthamizhan, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant gave this false complaint. He would also submit that he has not abused him by mentioning his caste name in a public view. Moreover, he was not aware about the community of petitioner. Only with an ulterior motive this complaint was lodged. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The learned counsel also pointed out that there is no eye-witnesses from the public view and the alleged witnesses viz., 2nd and 3rd witnesses are wife and son of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and other two witnesses are closely associated with the petitioner. So, the fact reveals that there is no independent witnesses from the public view.

6. Admittedly, the F.I.R. was lodged in Crime No. 421 of 2021 for an offence under Sec. 294(b), 341, 506(2), 326 of I.P.C. r/w Sec.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the petitioner. However, the fact reveals that there is no witness from the public view and the prosecution also failed to establish that the petitioner humiliated the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant by mentioning his caste name in the public view. When there is no basic materials available for the said offence, the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted under the Special Act. For that, the petitioner's counsel relied on the ratio laid down by this Court in the authority in Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 204 of 2015 dated 20.01.2021 in the case of Paulraj and others vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam Sub-Division, Madurai District and another, wherein in para 12 to 14, this Court held as follows:-

“ 12.The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020, [Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another], in which, it has been held as follows: “14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in any place within public view”.

What is to be regarded as "place in public view" h