Judgment The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No. 11082 of 1987 on the file of the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. The prosecution has been initiated by the respondent for an offence under Sec.160, Indian Penal Code in respect of an incident said to have taken place at 11.30 A.M. on 19.4.1987 inside the Mansion Site Police Quarters, on the common staircase. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that when at 11.30 AM. on 19.4.1987 one Lakshmi, the wife of G.James, questioned the petitioner about her hurling abuses regarding the parking of cycle by a boy in the common staircase, the petitioner and Lakshmi quarrelled among themselves and assaulted each other. It is stated that both of them were separated by Kannan, the younger brother of the petitioner. 3. The point urged by Mr.D.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to quash the proceedings is that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sec.160, Indian Penal Code are not attracted, even if the entire averments in the documents furnished to the petitioner are taken at their face value. To appreciate this contention, I looked into the entire records under Sec.173, Criminal Procedure Code furnished to the petitioner. It is very clear that the occurrence has taken place in the staircase of the police quarters in Mansion Site, Madras. The quarrel alleged, is between two women, who are the residents in the police quarters. 4. To constitute an offence of affray under Sec.160, Indian Penal Code: a. There must be a fight between two or more persons; b. such fight must be in a public place; and c. the fight must disturb the public peace. A public peace is one where public go or is frequented by the public. This will indicate that the place where the public are actually in the habit of going must be deemed to be a public place. Places where people gather as a matter of right may become a public place and in certain circumstances, where the public go, no matter whether they have a right to go or not on private property, if they are frequented by public, it may still become a public place. Therefore, what exactly a public place is may vary from time to time and will depend upon the facts unfurled in each case. Therefore, what exactly a public place is may vary from time to time and will depend upon the facts unfurled in each case. By no stretch of imagination, the police quarters which is the scene of occurrence in this prosecution can be deemed to be a public place. Further, the fight alleged must disturb the public peace. There is no averment whatsoever in the entire records to indicate that the fight disturbed the public place. Except the first ingredient of fight between two or more persons, the other two ingredients are not attracted. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of the definition of the word “public” in Sec.12 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court must construe the police quarters as a public place. The word “public” in terms of Sec.12 of the Indian Penal Code includes any class of the public or any community. All that the definition indicates is that any class of the public or community is included within the term “public” and even if it is used in a restricted sense it may only include a particular body or aggregation or people. I do not agree that the police residential quarters would be a public place in view of the definition in Sec.129, Indian Penal Code. 6. The prosecution is misconceived and is liable to be quashed. The proceedings in C.C.No.11082 of 1987 on the file of the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras is quashed. This petition is allowed.