Kerala High Court
Aji Raj C.A vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 49
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 3RD MAGHA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.4346 OF 2019(C)
AGAINST SC 71/2019 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT CASES,
KOTTARAKKARA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
AJI RAJ C.A.
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, CHAVARATTIL HOUSE, PUTHUR,
KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE, KAIPPARAMBU P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
SRUTHY N. BHAT
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 SIVAPRASAD,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.PARAMU, POONATHARAYIL HOUSE, MANALIL P.O.,
MAVELI MURI, PANMANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-
691312.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY
R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.FEROZE
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
SRI AJITH MURALI-PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2020, THE COURT ON 23.01.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019
2
"CR"
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
Crl.M.C.No.4346 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2020
ORDER
This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the case S.C.No.71/2019 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Kottarakkara.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the aforesaid case. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner/accused and the second respondent/de facto Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 3 complainant were employees of the company by name 'LIVIDUS'. The de facto complainant is a member of a scheduled caste. The accused is not a member of a scheduled caste. On 25.05.2018, at about 19.00 hours, in the hall in the building in which the office of the aforesaid company was functioning, the accused used obscene words to the annoyance of the de facto complainant and insulted and abused him by calling him by his caste name and also caught hold of the collar of the shirt of the de facto complainant and pushed him and threatened him that he would kill him. It is alleged that the accused had entertained enmity towards the de facto complainant for the reason that the de facto complainant had given prior information to the Managing Director of the company regarding the decision taken by the accused to conduct a strike in the company.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the second respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, according to the prosecution case, the incident occurred inside a Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 4 hall in the office of a private company and that it was not a public place and therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are not attracted. Learned counsel would also contend that, obscene words were allegedly used by the petitioner not in a public place and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 294(b) I.P.C is also not attracted.
6. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that, in order to attract the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, it is not necessary that the act of insult or intimidation or abuse by the accused shall be committed in a public place but it is only sufficient that such act is committed in a place within public view. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the second respondent.
7. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act provides that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punished. Section 3(1)(s) of the Act Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 5 provides that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view, shall be punished.
8. Intentional insult or intimidation with the intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, in any place within public view, attracts the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. Abuse of any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name, by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, in any place within public view, attracts the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act. It is necessary that commission of the acts of intentional insult or intimidation or abuse shall be done in a place within public view.
9. The distinction between the expressions "public place"
and "in any place within public view" has been elucidated by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh v. State : (2008) 8 SCC 435 Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 6 as follows:
"It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a 'Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression 'place within public view' with the expression 'public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. ...... However, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Swaran Singh did not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that any member of the public was present when Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 7 Swaran Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie offence is made out against appellant no.1 ".
(emphasis supplied).
10. There is a world of difference between the expressions "in any public place" and "in any place within public view". The expression "in any place within public view" has specific meaning. A place "within public view" may be a private or a public place. The requirement of public view can be satisfied even in a private place, where the public is present. The location of the place of occurrence has importance. The courtyard of the residential building of a person is a private place. But, if it is visible to persons from outside, it would be a place "within public view". If an act of insult or intimidation or abuse is committed there and if such act is seen by a person from outside, it can definitely be found that the act is committed "within public view". Suppose, a function is held in a residential house in the presence of members of the public who are invited. If the act of insult or intimidation or abuse is committed there in their presence, then Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 8 it is an act committed "within public view". When the act committed is viewed by any member of the public, it becomes an act committed "within public view", whether it is a private place or a public place. The expression "within public view" has to be understood to mean that the act alleged has taken place in the presence of a member of the public. Even if the act alleged was committed in a public place and if no member of the public has seen it, it cannot be found that the act was committed "within public view". The act of insult or intimidation or abuse should have been visible to the public. Thus, it can be seen that what is relevant and material is not whether the act alleged was committed in a private place or a public place but whether it was committed "within public view".
11. In the instant case, the incident took place inside the hall of a building in which the office of a private limited company was functioning. The prosecution has cited two witnesses who have allegedly seen the incident. They are employees of the same company. Whether they are friends or relatives of the de facto complainant or persons who have got any affinity towards Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 9 the de facto complainant or whether they could be considered as "members of the public" are questions to be decided on evidence. The materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.
12. Now, the contention regarding the commission of the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C shall be adverted to. It is significant that the expression "public place'' is used in Section 294(a) I.P.C but the expression used in Section 294(b) I.P.C is "in or near public place". The expression ''in or near public place'' is much wider in its sweep and scope than the expression ''public place''. If obscene words are uttered or used by the accused even in the vicinity of a public place, then the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C would be attracted. Such an act committed by the accused in a private place but which is located in the close vicinity of a public place, in a manner audible to other persons and to the annoyance of other persons, would attract the offence punishable under Section 294(b) I.P.C.
13. The petitioner has to face the trial anyway. Therefore, Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 10 the questions whether the words alleged to have been used by the petitioner were obscene or not, whether such words were used by him in or near a public place etc. are better left to be decided by the trial court after taking evidence.
14. When the allegations raised against the accused in the final report filed by the police contain the ingredients of the offences alleged against him and when the prosecution has produced materials to prove such allegations, the final report cannot be quashed by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE jsr Crl.M.C.No.4346/2019 11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R.IN CRIME
NO.795/2018 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE
STATION, KOLLAM CITY ALONG WITH FIRST
INFORMATION STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
NO.795/2018 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE
STATION, KOLLAM CITY.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2018
IN CRIMINAL M.P.NO.305 OF 2018 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT
CASES, KOTTARAKARA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE