Judgment: Oral Judgment: The present application is filed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.9.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon in Regular Criminal Case No. 227/1998. 2. It is the case of the applicant that he is Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Chalisgaon. An employee named Shri.Ananda Shenpadu Sonwane was dismissed from the services for absence from the duties and certain misconduct. The said employee approached to the Labour Court, but he was not granted any relief. He had also filed a complaint under the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) but that was subsequently dismissed by the learned Special Court, Jalgaon. 3. It is the case of the applicant that thereafter, the mother and wife of Shri.Ananda Shepadu Sonwane alongwith one Mr.Namdeo Jadhav met the applicant in his house and requested to reconsider his case sympathetically. The applicant replied that if the application for condoning his lapses is filed and if the legal proceedings are withdrawn, his case can be considered sympathetically. 4. It is the case of the applicant that the advocate Shri.Ananda Shenpadu Sonawane, viz Shri. Mahadu Dhondu More filed a complaint under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging that the petitioner had uttered the words in respect of him as "Tinpat", "Nalayak" and "Halkat". 5. It is the further case of the applicant that on the basis of these allegations, the respondent No. 2, original complainant, filed case before the Special Court, Jalgaon. It was ultimately transferred to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon. 6. It is contended that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon issued the process under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7. It is further contended that the respondent No. 2, original complainant, was convicted by this Court under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in "Shlini Bhimrao Gaikwad Vs. Advocate M.D.More, (2002 (2) Mah.L.J. 677)". The respondent No. 2, original complainant, is practicing as an advocate at Chalisgaon. 7. It is further contended that the respondent No. 2, original complainant, was convicted by this Court under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in "Shlini Bhimrao Gaikwad Vs. Advocate M.D.More, (2002 (2) Mah.L.J. 677)". The respondent No. 2, original complainant, is practicing as an advocate at Chalisgaon. The Bar Association of Chalisgaon unanimously passed a resolution whereby it was stated that the Respondent No. 2, original complainant, is filing several cases under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Judges, Police Officers, Government Officers, Advocates and other respectable persons, therefore, the Bar Council and other authorities may be requested to take appropriate action against him. 8. Onthe basis of aforestated facts, the present petitioner has filed this application for quashing the issuance of process against him and also for grant of anticipatory bail. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant at the time of filing of this application was of 72 years old, by this time, he is 80 years old. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in public life since last more than 40 years, he is involved in political activities, he is respectable person in the society, the filing of the complaint by the complainant is abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the complaint under section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheducled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the complainant’s case is that the alleged incident took place inside the house of the present applicant. It is further submitted that the requirement of section 3(1)(x) of the Act is that the incidence of insult or intimidation has to occur in a place accessible to and in the presence of the public. The presence of both these ingredients would be absolutely necessary to constitute the offence under the said provision of Act. The complaint disclosing absence of both or any one of this ingredient, would not be sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. The presence of both these ingredients would be absolutely necessary to constitute the offence under the said provision of Act. The complaint disclosing absence of both or any one of this ingredient, would not be sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. It is further submitted that the expression "within public view" has specific meaning in order to attract the provision of law under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, that amounts to insult or humiliation to the member of the schedule caste or schedule tribe, should be visible and audible to the public, otherwise it would not amount to an offence under the said provision of law. It is further submitted that it is the case of the complainant that the present applicant has attributed something against the complainant, not in his presence, but in presence of his client. The learned counsel also invited my attention to page 22 of the application and submitted that according to the complainant, words which are uttered by the present applicant are "Anandane Mala Kortat Khechat Astana Chalisgaon Yethil Sarva Namankit Wakilana Na Lawata Tya Nalayak, Tinpat, Halkat Mahadu More Wakilala Lawale Hote". According to the learned counsel, even if above statement as alleged by the complainant is taken as it is, the said sentence does not attribute to any offence under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. In the first instance, the applicant has not said anything as alleged by the complainant, assuming that the above sentences are uttered by the applicants, they do not constitute any offence as alleged by the complainant under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. 10. The learned counsel invited my attention to the provisions of section 3 of the said Act. Therefore, he submitted that the present application may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon in Regular Criminal Case No. 227/1998 dated 15.9.2000. 11. The learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application. He submitted that the offence is made out under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 12. Though service is complete, none appears for the respondent No. 2. 13. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned A.p.P. for the State, I am inclined to allow this application. 12. Though service is complete, none appears for the respondent No. 2. 13. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned A.p.P. for the State, I am inclined to allow this application. On perusal of this application and entire material brought on record by the present applicant and after hearing the learned A.P.P., I am of the view that even if the complaint is taken as it is, said complaint does not attract any provision of section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. This Court has occasion to consider the identical situation in the cases of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and another V. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 431 and V.P. Shetty, Chairman of Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. V. Sr. Inspector of Police & another, 2005(2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 891. This Court held that the acts amounting to insult or humiliation to the member of Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes should be visible and audible to the public, otherwise, it would not amount to an offence under the said provision of law. This Court has also held that the incidence of insult or intimidation has to occur in a place accessible to and in presence of the public. The presence of both these ingredients would be absolutely necessary to constitute the offence under the said provision of law. 14. Inthe instant case, the complaint itself discloses that the client of the complainant namely Ananda along with his wife and mother went to the applicant. The applicant uttered some abusing words against the complainant before his client Ananda, his mother and his wife. If the complaint is perused, no offence is made out under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. Firstly, even according to the complainant nothing has been stated directly by the applicant before the complainant, but complaint discloses that something has been said about him before his client, his mother and wife by the present applicant. Secondly, assuming that the sentences which are referred in the complaint uttered by the present applicant about the complainant, those words do not constitute offence under the said Act. Even according to the complainant, his client Ananda, his wife and mother went to the place of applicant. Secondly, assuming that the sentences which are referred in the complaint uttered by the present applicant about the complainant, those words do not constitute offence under the said Act. Even according to the complainant, his client Ananda, his wife and mother went to the place of applicant. That cannot be a place which is visible and audible to the public, therefore, it cannot be said that the incidence of insult or intimidation as alleged by the complainant is occurred at place accessible to and in presence of public. Therefore, in my view, there is no substance in the complaint, so far the offence alleged under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act is concerned. 15. In the result, the application is allowed, partly. The judgment and order dated 15.9.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon in Regular Criminal case No. 227/1998, so far relates to the section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is quashed and set aside. The application is allowed to the extent above and disposed of.