JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.12/2013 dated 10.02.2013 lodged at Police Station, Mathaniya, Jodhpur Rural for the offences punishable under sections 143, 341, 323 IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989' hereinafter). The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.2 alleging therein that on 09.02.2013 at about 8:30 - 9:00 PM when he was returning from agricultural field of Jagdish resident of Vinayakpura Bhawad, where he has been working as a watchman from last two months, suddenly the petitioners came there in a Bolero vehicle and forcibly took him away to the riverbed in the said vehicle and thereafter hurled abuses to him and assaulted him in the night. It is alleged that the petitioners brutally assaulted him and threw him in the riverbed assuming him to be dead and fled away in the said vehicle. The complainant has further stated that he was in weary condition and after some time when he felt himself better, he went to his house with great difficulty and narrated the incident to his family members. It is alleged that the main reason of assaulting the complainant is that a day prior to the lodgement of the complaint, he stopped the accused-persons from entering into the field of Jagdish. On receiving this report, the police registered the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 143, 341, 323 IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned FIR while contending that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of one Jagdish, who bears enmity with the petitioners. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, was not able to pinpoint where the incident took place. It is further contended that as per the complainant, the incident took place in the dead of night, therefore, it was not possible for any person to witness the same. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, was not able to pinpoint where the incident took place. It is further contended that as per the complainant, the incident took place in the dead of night, therefore, it was not possible for any person to witness the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the police has wrongly registered the FIR for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 as the alleged offence cannot be said to be committed by the petitioners in public view. It is contended that as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the alleged incident took place at an isolated place i.e. riverbed and no other person had witnessed the said incident and, therefore, it cannot be said that any case for offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & Anr., reported in 2011 CRI.L.J. 2594 He has also placed reliance on decision of this Court rendered in Dilip Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1998(2) R.C.C. 21 as well as the decisions of Bombay High Court and Jharkhand High Court respectively rendered in Dr. Sau. Suryakanta Ramesh Ajmera v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2011 CRI.L.J. 1803 and in Md. Nisarul Haq v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2011 CRI.L.J. 2755. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant have argued that the police after thorough investigation has found prima facie involvement of the petitioners in commission of crime. It is contended that as per the injury report, the complainant received as many as 5 injuries. It is further argued that the complainant is a member of scheduled caste and he was abused and assaulted by the petitioners in a public view and, therefore, the impugned FIR has rightly been registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. It is further argued that during the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of two witnesses viz. It is further argued that during the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of two witnesses viz. Ramchandra and Sahi Ram under section 161 CrPC, who have witnessed the said incident and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the alleged offence cannot be said to have been committed in public view is not tenable. Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the complainant have, therefore, prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed. 5. In the impugned FIR, the complainant has stated that when he was returning from the agricultural field of one Jagdish, the petitioners came there in a Bolero vehicle and forcibly took him away in the said vehicle and thereafter abused him by casteist words and brutally assaulted him in the riverbed. As per the complainant, the incident took place at around 8:30-9:00 PM i.e. in the night. In the complaint, he has nowhere stated that any other person has witnessed the incident. Though during the course of investigation the police recorded the statements of two witnesses viz. Ramchandra and Sahi Ram, who have stated that they have witnessed the incident but those witnesses have nowhere stated that at the time of incident, the petitioners were insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate the complainant, who is a member of scheduled caste. Interestingly, in his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, complainant Ima Ram has nowhere stated that when the petitioners were assaulting and abusing him, Ramchandra and Sahi Ram came there and witnessed the incident. 6. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 as it existed prior to substitution reads as under: "(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (x) intentionally insults of intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view." 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asmathunnisa's case (supra), interpreted the term "public view" and held as under: "10. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in any place but within public view", which means that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the person is not present." 8. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in any place but within public view", which means that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the person is not present." 8. As stated earlier, the complainant himself, in his complaint and the statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, has stated that the incident took place in the night at the riverbed. He has nowhere stated that any other person has witnessed the said incident. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under section 3(1) (x) of the Act of 1989 or intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant within public view. 9. In view of the above discussions, this criminal misc. petition is partly allowed. The impugned FIR (FIR No.12/2013 of Police Station, Mathaniya, Jodhpur Rural) against the petitioners up to the extent of offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed, however, the police is free to conclude its conclusion in respect of other offences of Indian Penal Code and thereafter to file final report before the court concerned. The impugned FIR is of February 2013 and, therefore, it is expected that the police would conclude the investigation expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from today.Petition partly allowed. *******