SC-ST Man Abused By Calling Him Caste Name In A Place Not Within Public View: Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet Against Accused

Post By 24law
February 1, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reiterated that for an offence to be constituted under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC-ST Act), the alleged abuse must occur in a place "within public view." The Court quashed the chargesheet filed against the appellant, holding that the incident in question did not meet this criterion.

Background of the Case

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose out of the judgment of the Single Judge of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed the petitions filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The petitions sought to quash the proceedings pending before the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

The case stems from an incident on September 2, 2021, when the appellant visited the office of the Revenue Inspector (Respondent No. 3) to inquire about the status of a petition regarding the inclusion of his father’s name in a land patta. During this interaction, a quarrel ensued, and the appellant allegedly abused the Inspector by referring to his caste name within the confines of the Revenue Divisional Office. Following this, a complaint was filed, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act. The appellant sought quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the alleged abuse did not occur in a "public view" setting as required by the SC-ST Act.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the appeal, reiterating the essential ingredient of "public view" under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act. The Court held: "For constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view." Clarifying the interpretation of "public view," the Bench relied on previous judgments, including Swaran Singh v. State and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, stating: "To be a place ‘within public view’, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view." The Court found that the FIR itself established that the incident took place inside the chambers of the complainant, and his colleagues arrived only after the alleged abuse had occurred. Therefore, the essential ingredient of "public view" was not satisfied.

Exercise of Power Under Section 482 CrPC

The Court also invoked the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), emphasizing the categories of cases where quashing of proceedings is justified. It observed: "We find, as already observed herein, that the allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence either under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act." The Bench noted that the High Court failed to consider this crucial aspect and, therefore, set aside its order.

In its final order, the Supreme Court quashed the chargesheet in Special S.C. No. 7 of 2022 and all proceedings arising from it, holding that the necessary ingredients to invoke Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act were not satisfied.

Cause Title: Karuppudayar v. State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Ors