ORDER 1. The instant S.B. Criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 aggrieved from order dated 25.04.2022 in complaint case No. 20/2021 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Kota whereby complaint of appellant complainant was dismissed. 2. A complaint under Sections 336, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act was filed on 06.04.2021 with the allegation that on 24.03.2021 around 11.00P.M. accused called him and inquired about his brother Narendra but complainant had disconnected the call, thereafter, the accused respondent again called him and insulted complainant and his brother using casteist slur and abusive language. This conversation was recorded by the complainant and on the basis of conversation, he craved before learned trial Court for proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. Learned trial Court instead of forwarding this complaint to register a criminal case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., decided to record the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Gajendra Prajapati under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court has also called certain record from concerned police station Dadabari, Kota. After hearing the complainant, the complaint was dismissed, hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that as per Rule 7 of SC/ST (POA) Rules, any inquiry can only be conducted by any officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or a superior official but here in this case, inquiry was conducted by a Police Constable having no authority to conduct inquiry. He further submitted that respondent accused was bound under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. which clearly indicated that respondent-accused had committed offence as alleged by complainant. He further submitted that learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence recorded on oath of complainant and the witnesses in right perspective as they remained thoroughly uncontradicted. He further submitted that there was no material to discard the allegation as levelled by appellant-complainant against the respondent. He further submitted that at the stage of issuing process, learned trial court was required to look into prima facie case and nothing more than that. He further submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the proper process had decided to dismiss the complaint filed by the appellant, and learned trial court was not required to meticulously weigh evidence at the stage of cognizance, therefore his appeal be allowed. 5. He further submitted that learned trial court without appreciating the proper process had decided to dismiss the complaint filed by the appellant, and learned trial court was not required to meticulously weigh evidence at the stage of cognizance, therefore his appeal be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor had opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for appellant. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent that the matter is false and concocted. He further submitted that in complaint itself, nowhere it was mentioned that the entire conversation was heard by Gajendra Prajapati whereas after making improvement in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that entire conversation was heard by Gajendra Prajapati. He further submitted that the conversation on phone is not an insult or act in "public view" as defined under Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1989. He further submitted that there was a financial transaction between respondent and brother of complainant and complainant in connivance with his brother had filed a false complaint against the respondent so that his brother can avoid repayment of borrowed money. He further submitted that admittedly, no one heard the conversation between two individuals and on the basis of telephonic conversation no cognizance can be taken by any court. He further referred the inquiry conducted by police constable and submitted that no FIR was registered and Rule 7 of SC/ST (POA) Act applies only when an investigation is conducted. He further submitted that learned trial court had given cogent reasons while refusing to take cognizance and there are no grounds to interfere in the order of learned trial court. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for respondent and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 7. When we peruse Rule 7 of the Act as referred before the Court, then it is quite clear that investigation should not be done by any officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police whether the allegations are true or otherwise. Herein, on the basis of complaint lodged in P.S. Dadabari, Kota, the same was inquired by one of the constables of the police station and later on, after arrest, Yash Peshwani was bound under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C.. Herein, on the basis of complaint lodged in P.S. Dadabari, Kota, the same was inquired by one of the constables of the police station and later on, after arrest, Yash Peshwani was bound under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C.. A report dated 30.07.2021 of police clearly indicated that without registration of any FIR, an inquiry was conducted and nothing more was done. The rule provides for investigation by an officer of police not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police which means that once an FIR is registered, then investigation would be conducted by officer designated under the rules. Herein, no FIR was registered hence this argument cannot be considered by this Court. 8. When we look at complaint then it is clear that complainant and accused were not personally known to each other but were merely acquaintances. The call was in fact made to address brother of complainant Narendra but instead of Narendra it is alleged that call was received by complainant. Herein, no record as regard to ownership of SIM card was produced to prove the fact that the SIM card belongs to present complainant. The complainant was further examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. which clearly indicated that respondent is a friend of his brother. It is also indicated in the statement that brother of complainant had a business of dealing in properties whereas respondent is indulged in financing. The evidence clearly indicate that dispute is between Narendra and respondent but not between complainant and respondent. A perusal of deposition under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that complainant was not insulted deliberately but the entire slur was used against brother of complainant and brother of complainant was not produced to raise any grievance. Another issue is word used in Section 3 (1) of the Act 1989 i.e. "public view". In dictionary, the meaning of public view means places where ordinary public movement is a routine in full view where public can see and also experience when there is some shocking incident. Under the IPC "public view" is not defined. Therefore, we can safely say that public view means any visible place/location which maybe lawfully viewed either from a side walk, street, alive way from any adjoining or neighbouring place etc. Herein, presence of Gajendra Prajapati (CW-2) is not natural at the residence of complainant, therefore, incident is of 24.03.2021 whereas complaint was filed on 06.04.2021. Therefore, we can safely say that public view means any visible place/location which maybe lawfully viewed either from a side walk, street, alive way from any adjoining or neighbouring place etc. Herein, presence of Gajendra Prajapati (CW-2) is not natural at the residence of complainant, therefore, incident is of 24.03.2021 whereas complaint was filed on 06.04.2021. It clearly indicated that filing of complaint is an afterthought process, therefore, learned trial court while dealing with the entirety of the fact has not committed any irregularity or illegality. I find no reason to interfere in the order of learned trial Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 9. Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of.