R. C. CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THE PETITIONER WAS SUMMONED AS AN ACCUSED UNDER section 3 (1) (X) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED tribes (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 (HEREINAFTER referred TO AS THE `act ONLY) ON THE BASIS OF A complaint FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER and SOME OTHERS. ( 2 ) THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE contained IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE COMPLAINT. A READING OF paragraph 5 OF THE COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF the COMPLAINANT AS CW-1 DOSE NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE petitioner MADE THE OBJECTIONABLE COMMENTS/remarks IN "public VIEW". THE PRESENCE OF THE CO-ACCUSED ONLY OF the PETITIONER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "public VIEW" WITHIN the MEANING OF SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT. IN A RECENT judgment OF THIS COURT IN DAYA BHATNAGAR and ORS. V. STATE; reported IN 109 (2004) DELHI LAW TIMES 915, THE WORDS "public VIEW" AS USED IN SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT WERE interpreted AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE "public VIEW" MEANS that PERSONS FROM PUBLIC SHOULD BE PRESENT HOWSOEVER small IN NUMBER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT. ( 3 ) IN THE CASE IN HAND, NEITHER THE ALLEGATIONS IN the COMPLAINT, NOR THE STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT AS CW- 1 DISCLOSE THAT THE OBJECTIONABLE REMARKS/comments MADE by THE PETITIONER WERE IN "public VIEW" AND AS SUCH THE complaint UNDER SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS summoning WERE GROUNDLESS, UNWARRANTED AND AN ABUSE OF the PROCESS OF LAW. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE proceedings QUA THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF the SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF atrocities) ACT, 1989, ARE QUASHED. ( 5 ) THE PETITION STANDS DISPOSED OF. CRL. M. NO. 456/2003 DISMISSED AS ANFRACTUOUS.