- ORDER : 1. The petitioners are seeking to quash PRC.No.14 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 and are facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x) & 3(2) of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 323, 452, 307, 506 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police and the 2 nd petitioner is an Inspector of Police in the State Police Department. A private complaint was filed by the 2 nd respondent against the petitioners and three others, alleging various offences. The learned Magistrate took the case on file and directed the issuance of notices to the accused. 3. It is alleged that the petitioners, while investigating Crime No.98 of 2015 under Section 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, had committed specific exercises, including inflicting wounds during custodial torture, to the 2 nd respondent. It is also alleged that the petitioners became agitated upon learning that the 2 nd respondent’s wife had filed a petition before the learned Magistrate Court for the issuance of a search warrant. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed to submit a report on the search warrant and had returned the warrant, duly informing that the petitioners and others did not cooperate with the investigating officer. 4. Efforts to register the complaint against the petitioners did not yield any results, as the police authorities did not entertain the complaint filed by the 2 nd respondent against their personnel. As such, a private complaint was filed, and the learned Magistrate took the case on file after recording the sworn statements of the witnesses. 5. The cognizance taken would indicate that the accused Nos.1 and 3 did not act in accordance with the procedure of law and illegally detained the 2 nd respondent. The learned Magistrate has basing on the sworn statements of PWs.1 to 8 and duly taking into consideration the list of documents enclosed along with the complaint had taken cognizance for offences under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x) & 3(2) of SC& ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 323, 452, 307, 506 read with 34 of IPC. 6. The learned Magistrate has basing on the sworn statements of PWs.1 to 8 and duly taking into consideration the list of documents enclosed along with the complaint had taken cognizance for offences under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x) & 3(2) of SC& ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and Section 323, 452, 307, 506 read with 34 of IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in a false case, and the 2 nd respondent is a habitual offender involved in several cases. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent, aggrieved by the action of the petitioners in arresting the 2 nd respondent in the other cases, has resorted to filing a private complaint by alleging falsehood. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners, Government Servants discharging a statutory function, are protected from the filing of false cases, and there is a bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. A prior sanction ought to have been obtained before registering a case against the petitioners. 8. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint under the provisions of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when there is a procedure set out under the Act for the purpose of investigation. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ places reliance on Asmathunnisa Vs. State of A.P . (2011) 11 SCC 259 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with an issue relating to utterances of offensive words in a place with public view for attracting the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act. On the facts of that case, the alleged offensive words were not uttered in the place with public view. Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another , (2020) 10 SCC 710 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that insult or intimidation in any place with public view is a key ingredient for committing an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act. Yanagani Sathyanarayana and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another , 2024 (2) ALD (Crl.) 451 (AP) the learned single judge of this Court dealt with an issue relating to abuse in the name of caste in a place with public view. As the allegations in the said case did not meet the essential ingredient of public view, the case was quashed. A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. As the allegations in the said case did not meet the essential ingredient of public view, the case was quashed. A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police , 2023 Live Law (SC) 485 the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the requirements of compliance under Section 197 Cr.P.C when cases are to be filed against the public officers alleging offences during the course of their duty. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submits that prior antecedents of the 2 nd respondent cannot be cited as a reason for indulging in activities beyond the powers of the petitioners. In the present case, the petitioners exceeded their jurisdiction and abused and inflicted injury on the 2 nd respondent while detaining them in their illegal custody. 11. It is also submitted that the allegations were specifically made, and the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offence only after being satisfied that a prima facie case was adequately made out and passed a speaking and well-reasoned order, taking cognisance of the allegations and for the issuance of summons. It is also submitted that the matter would have to be adjudicated on merits before the trial Court. Several questions of fact may not be addressed by this Court in the present quash petition. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 13. Two legal points are raised for the consideration of this Court ; a) Whether the petitioners could have been arraigned as accused without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.? b) Whether offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Atrocities Act can be taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate by relying upon the sworn statements of the witnesses on behalf of the complainant? 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are employed in the police department and are state government employees. The allegations against the petitioners, alleging custodial torture and other excesses, which are allegedly committed by them while investigating a crime against the 2 nd respondent. It is a statutory duty that the petitioners were discharging in investigating a crime. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are employed in the police department and are state government employees. The allegations against the petitioners, alleging custodial torture and other excesses, which are allegedly committed by them while investigating a crime against the 2 nd respondent. It is a statutory duty that the petitioners were discharging in investigating a crime. It is not the case of the 2 nd respondent that the 2 nd respondent was picked up without there being any crime registered against the 2 nd respondent and subjected to custodial torture or abuses while in police custody. 15. The allegations about custodial torture, illegal confinement, etc., would have to be raised before an appropriate forum for effective resolution of the grievance. That apart, Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Rules 1995, mandates the police officer not below the rank of DSP to conduct investigation and the investigating officer after completion of investigation would have to submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn must forward the report to DGP or Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer of the concerned police station shall have to file the charge sheet in the Special Court within 60 days. 16. When the procedure for investigating offences under the SC & ST (POA) Act mandates investigation by a police officer, the learned Magistrate could not have assumed the role of an investigating officer to take cognizance of the offence and issue a summons to the accused. 17. On the facts of this case, the alleged offences under Section 3(1)(ii)(x) and Section 3(2) of the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act occurred inside the police station. The premises, which are not accessible to the general public and which are not within the public glare, cannot be considered as a place with public view. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners mandating the requirement of fulfillment of the key ingredient of commission of an offence in public view for attracting the penal provisions of Section 3(1)(ii)(x) and Section 3(2) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act apply to the facts of this case. 18. The criminal petition deserves to be allowed as no sanction under Section 197 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. was obtained before taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners. 19. 18. The criminal petition deserves to be allowed as no sanction under Section 197 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. was obtained before taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners. 19. The learned Magistrate has overlooked seven provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and erred in assuming the role of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and taking cognizance of the case. That apart police station cannot be considered a place with public view, as entry and exit are restricted for the general public, except for those approaching the Station House Officer to lodge complaints or for any other enquiry regarding an investigation. 20. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed, and PRC No. 14 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District, is hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.