JUDGMENT K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. 1. Heard finally. Rule, made returnable and heard forthwith. The petitioner has questioned FIR vide Crime No.3007/2008 for offence under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, lodged by respondent no.2 Nitin. 2. The petitioner was working as Superintendent, G.S.S. Grade B at Panchayat Samiti, Ahmadpur, Dist. Latur, from June 2006 to Feb., 2010. His wife was Block Development Officer, Ahmadpur taluka, at the relevant time. As part of his official duty, he was required to visit and inspect various schools. Accordingly, on 17.7.2008, he had visited Vasantrao Naik Ashram School at village Kingaon, Tq. Ahmadpur, Dist.Latur (School) where he noticed various illegalities. He was required to call upon the concerned for giving explanation. He has alleged, Dr.Ambadas Gulave, who conducts the school, prevented him from carrying his lawful official activities; he was even assaulted in the Chamber of the Headmaster of the school. The petitioner, somehow, managed to leave in injured condition, reached at Ahamadpur where he was required to take treatment at Government Rural Hospital. His initial statement came to be recorded by officers of Ahmadpur Police Station which was forwarded to Kingaon Police Station and concerned Police registered Crime No.70/2008 under Sections 353, 332, 342, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against Ambadas Haribhau Gulave, Hemant Ambadasrao Gulave, Prashant Ambadasrao Gulave and Nitin Madanrao Chikte. 3. It is also canvassed by the petitioner, the assault on him was talk of the town and has even emerged in the local newspaper. He was required to be admitted at Sushrut Hospital, Ahmadpur for few days. 4. It is alleged, as a counter to the said prosecution, Shri Ambadas Gulave influenced his employee Nitin Chikte, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe to file FIR for infraction of provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989). Consequently, a FIR vide Crime No. 3007/2008, was registered on 19.7.2008 at about 13.15 hrs. Copy of the FIR illustrate, said Nitin had approached concerned Police at Kingaon, on 17.7.2008 at 22.00 hours. After preliminary investigation and recording of the statement, chargesheet in the said crime was filed. 5. Consequently, a FIR vide Crime No. 3007/2008, was registered on 19.7.2008 at about 13.15 hrs. Copy of the FIR illustrate, said Nitin had approached concerned Police at Kingaon, on 17.7.2008 at 22.00 hours. After preliminary investigation and recording of the statement, chargesheet in the said crime was filed. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is, no incident of insult to said Nitin Chikte has ever taken place while he was at the school carrying out his official activities on 17.7.2008. Since he was brutally assaulted, injured and he prosecuted the office bearers of the school and Nitin, Nitin has acted as an instrument for his mentor to ensure persecution of the petitioner by false prosecution vide Crime No.3007/2008. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was injured, he was taken by his wife, who is Block Development Officer, to Ahmedpur Hospital and report was consequently lodged. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Salve, learned Counsel for Nitin submits that it is a smokescreen created by the petitioner. The petitioner should have lodged the FIR at Kingaon, where a Police Station exists. Lodging of FIR at Ahmadpur is total falsehood. Learned Counsel was critical of the Police authorities while recording Crime No.3007/2008. According to him, Police did not entertain grievance of Nitin on 17/7/2008, at 22.00 hours, as in time it was imperative, however, they registered the FIR on 19.7.2008 belatedly. He accepts that, in such matters, under the Rules, the investigation is to be carried by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 8. Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, conceive as under: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,... ... ... (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; " The term "within public view" is quite distinct from "public place". It may be a place of ordinary residence, like courtyard, where the incident took place but the illegalities could be activated to be known to the public at large. Consequently, it amounts within public view. 9. It may be a place of ordinary residence, like courtyard, where the incident took place but the illegalities could be activated to be known to the public at large. Consequently, it amounts within public view. 9. The relevant Marathi portion in the FIR of Nitin dated 17.7.2008, reads as under: VARNACULAR MATTER OMITTED ("When Bhosale Sir went to his house at 11.30 p.m. for lunch, I asked to Suryawanshi Saheb that may I give him water ? Then he told me, hey, this institution belongs to "Mahardya" and I have allergy of drinking water from the school of "Dhedgya" and Head Master of this 'Mahargya's Institution has not paid instalment of Rs.5000/of the last month towards (supply of) school nutrition diet, bring immediately Rs.5000/, otherwise, I will not allot / give school nutrition diet of your school and will stop all grants.") In the later unsigned part of FIR as a Note, it is recorded, Yunus Babusab Shaikh or Madhav Gunaji Kshirsagar, other employees in the school were present at the relevant time the note, unsigned; whether it was a subsequent interpolation or made immediately, as a part of the FIR, creates cloud about their presence. 10. The callousness on the part of the Police Officer in belatedly recording FIR of Nitin can be taken care by him at appropriate stage but, the ordinary impression that is generated is, in order to dilute effects of prosecution initiated by the petitioner vide Crime No.70/2008, implicating office bearers, Nitin, the complainant, has acted as a stooge to ensure smooth passage to the employer to create pressure upon the petitioner. The petitioner had been to the school as a part of his official duty. 11. The Marathi version of the FIR of Nitin is indicated hereinabove. Petitioner, in fact, did not assert any abusive language personally, insulting said Nitin in the name of his caste. He allegedly made general statement about the institution to be belonging to the persons of Backward Class and he has allergy to drink water from such institution. It will not remotely apply as an intimidation, attracting provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Such comment could not be said to be in public view. It does not generate momentum that the petitioner had an idea of summation of facts to incite or intimidate. Thus, the three parameters requisite for such prosecution viz. It will not remotely apply as an intimidation, attracting provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Such comment could not be said to be in public view. It does not generate momentum that the petitioner had an idea of summation of facts to incite or intimidate. Thus, the three parameters requisite for such prosecution viz. (a) Intentionally insults, (b) Intimidates with intention to humiliate; and (c)within public view are eminently lacking in the matter. There was no dormant feeling to insult the complainant. No criminal propensity is emerged against petitioner. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment in the matter of Shri P.B.Shah & Others Vs. Shri Prabhu Mahadeo Kodate & others ( 2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 2520) wherein this Court has indicated what is "public view" and demonstrated that "public view" would mean where members of the public are able to hear the insults or see the intimidation. 13. The flashback shows Mr.Bhosale had already left the school. The inmates in the school assaulted the petitioner. If Yunus or Kshirsagar could have been present at the relevant time, the FIR vide Crime No.70/2008 could have indicated so. 14. Mr. Kshirsagar and Mr.Yunus, in their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. gave a cyclostyled narration of the event, continuing identical mistakes in the FIR which demonstrate that the investigation against the petitioner was not carried in a legitimate and rightful manner. It may be, as the petitioner has canvassed in his petition, the local goons have played vital role to ensure that the petitioner should be booked. The surcharged environment and situation at the school due to injuries to the petitioner cannot be skipped. There may be a grievance against the petitioner for harassing the school management expecting illegal remuneration of Rs. 5,000/per month. However, such illegalities should be taken care of at appropriate place but that will not attract or involve infraction of provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of The Act of 1989. The term "intimidation" is indicated in Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition as "unlawful coercion, extortion". Reverting again to the FIR or the statements of the two witnesses, there is not an iota of unlawful coercion or any extortion from the petitioner in public view. 15. In R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering scope of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Reverting again to the FIR or the statements of the two witnesses, there is not an iota of unlawful coercion or any extortion from the petitioner in public view. 15. In R.P.Kapur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering scope of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others ((2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 259), the three Judges Bench of has again delineated the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the matter of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & another (2012 ALL MR CRI 3806) on 13th Sept., 2012, the Hon'ble Lordships have demonstrated the cases in which the powers and scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. needs to be activated. In the matter of V.P.Shrivastava Vs. Indian Explosives Ltd. and others ( 2010 ALL MR CRI 3637 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly cautioned the High Courts that inherent jurisdiction does not confer arbitrary power to act according to whim or caprice; the power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not to produce injustices. The three circumstances referred earlier were reproduced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In the matter of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, ( (1992) Suppl.1 SCC 335), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down following cases by way of illustration wherein such powers could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise secure the ends of justice. It was clarified that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. The categories are: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, on investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 16. Thus, revisiting the chargesheet, the allegations in the FIR and the complaint and the primary evidence collected at its face value, do agp/- not constitute offence as alleged against the petitioner. The criminal proceeding is manifestly tainted with mala fide and maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and stifle the petitioners grievance arising out of Crime No.70/2008. Writ Petition allowed. Crime No.3007/2008 of Kingaon Police Station, taluka Ahmadpur, is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly.