ORDER : 1. The petitioner who is accused in P.R.C. No. 44/05 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapur, seeks for quashing of the proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner/accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). 3. On a complaint made by the second respondent-defacto complainant that the petitioner/accused abused him with an intention to humiliate him, the police registered the crime and after due investigation laid charge-sheet stating that on 7-8-2004 at about 10 a.m. while the defacto-complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Caste and working as Technician in X-ray Department in Apollo Hospital, Court Road, Anantapur, was on duty, the accused went to the scanning room and slapped him on the pretext that he did not clean the dust on the scanning machine and abused him in the name of his caste by uttering the words “ERA MADIGA LANJA KODAKA, NEEKU ENTA KOWURA, THAKKUVA JATHIKI EEKUVA KOODU VESTHE INTHERA”. Having humiliated he did not attend to the official duties for two days. Again on 12-8-2004 when the defacto complainant attended to his duties, his co-employee Suresh enquired with him for his unhappiness. Then the defacto complainant stated what had happened on 7-8-2004. Both of them went to the Chambers of the accused and questioned him about his highhanded acts. 4. The accused grew wild and abused the defacto complainant in the name of his caste uttering the words “AVUNURA EE VENKATESH MADIGA LANJA KODUKUNU INKA KODUTHANU, THITTUTHANU….MEEKU DIKKU VUNNA CHOTA LCHEPPUKO PONDI”. L.Ws. 3 and 4 who were present at the visitor's hall witnessed the incident. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Committal court took cognizance of the same and issued process. On issued process, the petitioner/accused moved this court by filing the present petition. 5. L.Ws. 3 and 4 who were present at the visitor's hall witnessed the incident. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Committal court took cognizance of the same and issued process. On issued process, the petitioner/accused moved this court by filing the present petition. 5. Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the complaint filed by the defacto complainant was with a mala fide intention and the alleged incident is not within the public view and even if the allegations are true, the incident has taken place in the chambers of the accused according to the complaint, whereas in the charge-sheet it was stated out side the chamber to bring it into public view. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He further contends that L.Ws. 3 and 4 were set up by the prosecution as a result of dispute between the petitioner and other partners therefore the story of the prosecution is unbelievable and placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai v. Union of India, 2000 (5) ALT 602 : 2000 (5) ALD 566 2. J. Sumana v. Endluri Asserwadamma 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 246 3. Penugonda Sreenivasa Reddy v. Penugonda Prameela, 2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 368. 6. Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant contends that the allegations made in the complaint as well as the 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation clearly establish that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether the incident had occurred in a place within a public view or not is a matter to be decided on the basis of the evidence and watching of public is sufficient to make it a public view and provisions of the Act are attracted as held by this court in E. Tirupem Reddy v. DSP, Nandya, 2006 Crl.L.J. 1606 (D.B.) and Y. Vasudeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 214 : 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 568 (A.P.). 7. A combined reading of allegations made in the complaint and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses would disclose that the incident had taken place at MD's chamber i.e., accused chamber. 7. A combined reading of allegations made in the complaint and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses would disclose that the incident had taken place at MD's chamber i.e., accused chamber. Whereas co-employee of the defacto complainant who was examined as L.W. 2 by the Police stated that the incident took place near the Chamber of the Managing Director likewise, L.W. 3 and 4 who are said to have visited the hospital at the relevant point of time stated that the said galata has taken place near the Chambers. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in E. Tirupem Reddy4 held that an act should have been done by the accused in any place within the public view and it is not necessary that such place should be a public place and it can be even in a place which is not a public place but which would be within the public view and wherever public is watching and wherever an incident is viewed by members of the public, it is public view and accordingly upheld the order of dismissal of the writ petition filed seeking quashing of FIR. Similarly, this court in Y. Vasudeva Rao (5 supra) held that “in any place within the public view” as mentioned in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act may be taken as a place where ordinarily the public visit for some purpose or other than with uninterrupted regularity though not continuously and further held that an office or an office room where the head of the office sits is also a place within the public view but the private ante chamber of such officer cannot be treated as a place within the public view because except the personal servants of the officer, nobody can enter the private chambers. In view of the extended meaning of “public view”, it is not necessary to further dilate the judgments of the single Judge on which much reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel. If there are any contractions (?) in the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the same are all matters of evidence to be gone into during the course of trial. 9. In view of the same, I do not see any ground to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 10. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.