As per case facts, the complainant and another individual, both members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, working at a factory, alleged that the factory owners (accused) pressured them to file ... a false complaint. Upon their refusal, the owners abused them using derogatory caste-based terms in front of other employees and threatened to terminate their employment. Although the incident occurred on April 6, 2024, the complaint was lodged on October 29, 2024. The accused sought to quash the criminal proceedings, citing the delay in filing the complaint, claims that the incident did not occur in "public view," and that the complaint was merely an offshoot of a pending trade union dispute. The question arose whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on these grounds when the complaint prima facie disclosed offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Finally, the Court ruled that the delay, while present, was not fatal to the case, especially considering the complainant's vulnerability as a workman fearing job loss. It clarified that "public view" can include a factory's accessible areas where other employees are present. The Court also determined that the trade union dispute was a separate issue not directly linked to the caste-based abuse allegations. Concluding that a prima facie case was established, the petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed.