Abuse Near Graveyard Satisfies “Public View” Requirement Under SC-ST Act: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings

The Court was hearing a criminal revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the proceedings arising out of an FIR and charge sheet alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta examined whether the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation disclosed the essential ingredients of the offences alleged to warrant continuation of the prosecution and held that “the incident took place near the graveyard situated at the west of village Pathantuli, the actions would prima facie satisfy the first and the second conditions of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act”.

Advocate Amarendra Chakraborty represented the petitioner, while Arindam Sen, Senior Government Advocate, represented the State.

Background

The prosecution case arose from a written complaint lodged by the de facto complainant alleging that when he was returning to his village, he was restrained, assaulted, threatened, and abused by the accused persons by referring to his caste.

It was alleged that the incident occurred near the graveyard situated at the western side of the village Pathantuli. According to the complaint, the accused persons addressed the complainant by his caste name, assaulted him with fists and blows, and threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant also alleged an attempt on his life, which was later not supported by medical evidence.

An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 341, 323, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the 1989 Act, omitting the graver IPC offences.

Aggrieved, the accused approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the proceedings.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the statutory ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, noting that the provisions require intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate, or abuse by caste name, committed in any place within public view.

The Court noted that the de facto complainant had specifically alleged that the accused persons abused and insulted him by referring to his caste and that the incident occurred near the graveyard situated at the west of the village Pathantuli. Statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were found to broadly corroborate the allegations made in the FIR.

Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court reiterated the distinction between a “public place” and a “place within public view”. It observed that a place need not necessarily be owned by the State to fall within public view, and that a location visible or accessible to members of the public would satisfy the statutory requirement.

Applying these principles, the Court held that a village graveyard is a place which would ordinarily fall within public view, and therefore, the allegations that the incident occurred near such a location prima facie satisfied both conditions under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

The Court further observed that at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it was impermissible to undertake a roving enquiry into the truthfulness or reliability of the allegations. Since the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case, the Court held that the petitioner was required to face trial.

Conclusion

Finding no abuse of the process of law, the Court dismissed the criminal revisional application and declined to quash the proceedings.

Cause Title: Suranjan Mandal @ Suranjoy Mandal v. The State of West Bengal And Another

Appearances

Petitioner: Amarendra Chakraborty, Advocate

State: Arindam Sen, Senior Government Advocate, with Suruchi Saha, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment