JUDGMENT : Anil S. Kilor, J. 1. Hearing was conducted through Video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper. 2. Heard. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. This is an application moved by the Principal of Bhawabhuti Mahavidyalaya, Amgaon, District Gondia, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of First Information Report registered vide crime No.371, dated 06.11.2019 and lodged by the non applicant No.2, who is working as ‘Librarian’ in the same college for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. Heard Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri E. S. Sahasrabuddhe, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri V. A. Thakre, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1 and Shri Bhushan Dafle, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2. 6. The story of the prosecution is that the non-applicant No.2-complainant on 06.11.2019 filed a complaint, alleging therein that because she belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, the applicant, who is the Principal of the College, always gives her insulting treatment. In support her allegations, she narrated certain incidences in the First Information Report. 7. One of such incidences alleged to have occurred on 30.04.2019, when the applicant insulted the non-applicant No.2 by using filthy language in front of some staff members of the college, whereafter the complaint was lodged with the non-applicant No.1. 8. The non-applicant No.1 accordingly registered the offence vide crime No.371 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is in question in the present matter. 9. Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant argues that none of the offences, under which the crime against the applicant has been registered, attracts on the face value of the First Information Report. He submits that the complaint in question has been lodged by the non-applicant No.2 to falsely implicate the applicant in the alleged offences. 10. He submits that the complaint in question has been lodged by the non-applicant No.2 to falsely implicate the applicant in the alleged offences. 10. He points out that the complainant earlier made a complaint to the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Commission on 30.07.2019 in respect of same incidence dated 30.04.2019, whereupon the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amgaon made detailed inquiry during which the statements of the witnesses including the staff members who alleged to have present at the time of incidence dated 30.04.2019, were recorded and arrived at a conclusion that no such incidence took place. Thus, learned Senior Advocate Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari submits that the complaint made by the non-applicant No.2 is a false complaint and made out of the vengeance, since non-applicant No.2 had some grievances against the applicant relating to administration. 11. Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant further submits that the alleged insulting phrase “HINDI” used during the alleged incidence dated 30.04.2019, is a Marathi idiom and if the complete sentence quoted in the First Information Report is taken as a whole and interpreted the same, no offence attracts as alleged. He further points out that the non-applicant No.2 is trying to misinterpret the complete sentence for her benefit, by not reading it as a whole but by reading some words in isolation. 12. Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant further argues that the alleged incidence dated 30.04.2019 had taken place in the close office of the Principal and it was not within the public view, which is the pre-requisite to attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 13. He further submits that in the complaint, in all three incidences have been narrated by the non-applicant No.2 in support of her allegations that the applicant humiliates and insults the non-applicant No.2 because she belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category. He further submits that out of the said three incidences, according to the non-applicant No. 2, herself, two incidences are based on her hearsay information. Thus, he submits that the said two hearsay incidences cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of registering the offence against the applicant. 14. He further submits that out of the said three incidences, according to the non-applicant No. 2, herself, two incidences are based on her hearsay information. Thus, he submits that the said two hearsay incidences cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of registering the offence against the applicant. 14. He lastly argues that the non-applicant No2 has not mentioned the Caste of the applicant in the compliant, which is mandatory and in absence of the same, the complaint itself vitiates. In support of his contention, Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate, has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in 2011 (11) Supreme Court Cases 259 and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2008 (12) SCC 531 . 15. On the other hand, Shri Thakre, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the application and prays for dismissal of the present application. 16. Shri Dafle, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 submits that prima facie the allegations made in the complaint attract the offences under which the crime has been registered against the applicant and therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Shri Dafle, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 fairly admits that out of the three incidences narrated in the complaint by the non-applicant No2, two incidences are based on hearsay information received by her. However, further it is submitted that at the time of last incidence, which was occurred on 30.04.2019, she was present. 18. He further submits that the office of the Principal, where the staff members were present when the incidence dated 30.04.2019 had occurred is within the public view. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. reported in 2008 (4) Cri. L. J. 4369. 19. Shri Dafle, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 argues that after the judgment in the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. reported in 2008 (4) Cri. L. J. 4369. 19. Shri Dafle, the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 argues that after the judgment in the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 1973 , the Investigating Officer can be gone into when the matter is being investigated to find out, whether the accused either belongs or does not belong to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes. Thus, he submits that the First Information Report would not vitiate on the ground that the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the First Information Report. 20. He further points out that the judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) holds the field, as the said judgment was delivered by the Bench of three judges of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, whereas the judgments cited by Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, in the case of Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (supra) and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra), are delivered by two judges Bench. 21. He further draws attention of this Court to the report dated 14.09.2020 of the Local Dispute Redressal Committee and submits that the said Committee has found the applicant guilty, as regards the incidence dated 30.04.2019. 22. To consider the rival contentions, we have gone through the record and perused the relevant documents and the judgments cited by both the parties. 23. The Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. (supra) has held thus: “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a `Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression `place within public view' with the expression `public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” Thus, is clear that as held by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, in the above referred judgment that even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence in the public view. 24. In the present matter, admittedly, the alleged incidence, dated 30.04.2019 had taken place in the office of the Principal, where as per the complainant, some staff members were present. Thus in this matter, in view of the above refereed judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. (supra), we have no hesitation to hold that in the present matter, the place of occurrence was a place within public view. In view of that matter, we reject the contention of the applicant that office of the Principal can not be treated as a place within public view. 25. In the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has held thus: “14. In view of that matter, we reject the contention of the applicant that office of the Principal can not be treated as a place within public view. 25. In the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has held thus: “14. It needs no reiteration that the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant whether the accused belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated. It is to be noted that under Section 23(1) of the Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short the `Rules') have been framed. 15. Rule 7 deals with the investigating officer. Under Rule 7 investigation has to be done by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 16. After ascertaining the facts during the course of investigation it is open to the investigating officer to record that the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. After final opinion is formed, it is open to the Court to either accept the same or take cognizance. Even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it is open to the accused to bring to the notice of the Court that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.” 26. The Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the above referred case, has thus observed that whether the accused belongs to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes can be gone into when the matter is being investigated and after ascertaining the fact during the course of the investigation, it is open to the Investigating Officer to record that the accused either belongs or does not belong to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and even if at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs or does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 27. 27. The judgments, in the case of Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (supra) and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra), cited by the applicant were delivered by the Bench comprising of two Judges of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, whereas the judgment of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) is delivered by the Bench comprising of three Judges. Thus, we have no doubt that the law laid down, in the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra), holds the field. Having observed so, we reject the contention of the applicant that the First Information Report vitiates on the ground that the complainant has not mentioned the caste of the applicant in the First Information Report. 28. Now moving to the last contention of Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that the incidence, dated 30.04.2019 does not attract the alleged offence, as the alleged objectionable words used by the applicant is a Marathi idiom and if the complete sentence is taken into consideration and interpreted, nothing abusive or offending had been said by the applicant. 29. Thus, at this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the First Information Report as regards the incidence, dated 30.04.2019. The relevant portion of the First Information Report in relation to the said incidence, dated 30.04.2019, which reads thus: “HINDI” (Emphasis supplied) The phrase used in the above referred vernacular portion of the First Information Report, “HINDI”, is Marathi idiom. 30. An idiom is a phrase or expression that typically presents a figurative, non-literal meaning attached to the phrase, but some phrases become figurative idioms while retaining the literal meaning of the phrase. 31. Some idioms are transparent. Much of their meaning does get through if they are taken or translated literally. But some idioms are having several meanings. 32. The expression “HINDI” has more than one meaning in Marathi. No doubt, one of the meanings of the said expression is not in good sense and therefore, in this case, it is necessary to find out the intention behind using the said Marathi idiom, for which it is necessary to read the complete sentence. 33. 32. The expression “HINDI” has more than one meaning in Marathi. No doubt, one of the meanings of the said expression is not in good sense and therefore, in this case, it is necessary to find out the intention behind using the said Marathi idiom, for which it is necessary to read the complete sentence. 33. The above marked/underlined portion of the First Information Report, which is reproduced in vernacular, if same is interpreted by taking into consideration as a whole without isolating the words “HINDI”, the simple meaning of it would be that ‘because, you do not make written complainants of your Attendant, he doesn’t obey your instructions’. 34. After interpreting the said statement, we do not have any doubt that the said statement does not attract either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 35. It is pertinent to state here that none of the witnesses, of whom names are mentioned in the First Information Report in question, namely Shri Hukare, Shri Upalpawar and Shri Barai have supported the case of the complainant. In the statements recorded by the police of the said witnesses, they have categorically stated that no such incidences had ever happened. 36. Moreover, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, in its Report has observed that no such incidences happened and the applicant has not committed any alleged act. 37. As regards to the Inquiry Report, submitted by the non-applicant No.2 on record, of the Local Dispute Redressal Committee, constituted under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, dated 14.09.2020, is concerned, it is revealed from the Inquiry Report that the said Committee did not record the statements of Shri Hukare, or Shri Upalpawar or Shri Barai, who were present at the time of alleged incidence, dated 30.04.2019 as per the version of the non-applicant No.2. The statement of one Smt. Tara Ravikar Hunge and other persons recorded by the said Committee, however, their names do not appear in the First Information Report as witnesses to the incidence, dated 30.04.2019. Therefore, in the present matter, the said report will not help the non-applicant No.2/complainant to arrive at a conclusion, even prima facie that the applicant had committed any offence, as alleged in the First Information Report. 38. Therefore, in the present matter, the said report will not help the non-applicant No.2/complainant to arrive at a conclusion, even prima facie that the applicant had committed any offence, as alleged in the First Information Report. 38. Having observed so, we are of the opinion that as the whole case is based on the incidence dated 30.04.2019 and the other incidences narrated in the First Information Report are hearsay and not occurred in the presence of the complainant, we have no hesitation to hold that no offence attracts in the present matter as alleged. 39. Thus, in the present matter, it would be futile to allow the prosecution to proceed and compel the applicant to face the trial before the Criminal Court. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 40. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, so also the law, we have arrived at a conclusion that in the present matter, the First Information Report in question needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER i) The Criminal Application is allowed. ii) The First Information Report No.371 of 2019, registered by Police Station, Amgaon, District Gondia, against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) No order as to costs.