JUDGMENT : 1. In all these petitions common question of fact and complaint including the cognizance order are the subject matter that is why all these cases have been heard together with consent of the parties. 2. The notices have been issued upon the O.P.No.2 by order dated 08.10.2020 and the office note suggest that notice have been effected upon the O.P.No.2 however, on repeated call nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 3. In all these petitions prayer is made for quashing the order dated 3.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in connection with SC/ST Case No.12 of 2019/ C.P.No.286 of 2019, however, cognizance has been taken under section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the summoning order is dated 20.12.2019, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad. 4. The written complaint was filed alleging therein that the prosecution case arises out of a written complaint dated 23.1.2019 of the complainant dated 23.1.2019. The complainant harijan by caste and falls under scheduled caste category while all other accused persons are members of non-SC/ST category. He is a workman working in Hariajam colliery of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Mugma. The accused no.6, Chinta Das wrongly submitted an application dated 01.10.2015 to the management of M/s ECL complaining that Manu Bouri, the complainant, is the son of Bholu Bouri and not of Badal Bouri and he was wrongly taken employment by falsely describing himself as the son of Bina Bourin and she has also submitted a genealogical table which is baseless and not correct. The accused no.6 has furnished such information so that the complainant can be dismissed from service and take revenge of long standing enmity between the accused no.6 and the complainant. The accused no.6 Chinta Das has no authority or has any authority to submit such genealogical table and therefore the same is liable to be rejected. On coming to learn about these facts he went to the house of accused no.6 on which Chinta Das questioned the complainant as to how he entered his house being a Harijan. Chinta Das thereafter caught hold of the collar of his shirt and pushed him out of her house. He thereafter went to meet the accused persons and enquired about the about facts. Chinta Das thereafter caught hold of the collar of his shirt and pushed him out of her house. He thereafter went to meet the accused persons and enquired about the about facts. The management thereafter called the accused no.6 Chinta Das and all the accused persons abused the complainant by calling name of his caste harijan and turned him out of the office. The complainant informed the S.P., Dhanbad in advance with an expectation that action would be taken but the police did not take any action and being left with no other remedy the complainant is filing the complaint. 5. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all these petitioners are the employees of the Eastern Coalfields Limited. The O.P.no.2 has been charge sheeted by the company for fraudulent employment in the company and subsequently he has been dismissed on 18.8.2018 and after dismissal from service the O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint on 23.1.2019. He submits that no ingredient of section 3(i)(s) of the said Act is made out and nothing has been happened in the public view and the case of the petitioners are fully covered in the light of the judgment in the case of “Swaran Singh and Others v. State, through Standing Counsel and Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 ”. 6. The learned counsels for the respondent State submits that the learned court after looking into the enquiry witnesses has taken cognizance and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. The Court has perused the complaint petition and finds that in the complaint itself it has been disclosed that the O.P.No.2 has been dismissed by the company and finds that it has been alleged in the paragraph no.8 that what has happened that was indoor of the office. The public view has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Swaran Singh and Others v. State, through Standing Counsel and Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 ”. 8. The public view has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Swaran Singh and Others v. State, through Standing Counsel and Another, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 ”. 8. There has been an intent or purpose to incorporate the words ‘public view’ which does suggest that if one is insulted or intimidated not in public view, then it would not be an offence under section 3(i)(s) of the said Act, rather the said offence would be attracted if a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is insulted or intimidated with a view to be humiliated within the public view or within public hearing as even at a private place or a building, if a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is insulted or intimidated with a view to humiliate him, he can be brought within the ambit of the said provision provided such offence has been committed with the public view or within the public hearing. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Others v. State, through Standing Counsel and Another (supra), wherein it has been observed at paragraph 28 as under: “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. 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. 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.” 9. Moreover, in the entire complaint it has not been disclosed that these petitioners are not members of that community which is one of the ingredients for maintaining the case under the SC/ST Act. It appears that since O.P.No.2 has been dismissed on the ground of fraudulently taking employment and maliciously this complaint case has been filed against the petitioners who happen to be the officers of the company, to allow this proceeding further in the court below will amount to abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 3.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad in connection with SC/ST Case No.12 of 2019/ C.P.No.286 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad is quashed. Cr.M.P.No.1424 of 2020, Cr.M.P. No.1340 of 2020, Cr.M.P. No.1421 of 2020, Cr.M.P. No.1427 of 2020 and Cr.M.P. No.1431 of 2020 stand allowed and disposed of. 11. I.A. if any also stands disposed of.