Complainant’s House Can’t Be Considered To Be "Place Within Public View" To Attract Offence U/S.3(1)(s) SC/ST Act: Supreme Court
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
While quashing a criminal case registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Supreme Court has held that the house of the complainant cannot be considered to be within public view. The Apex Court further held that the essential requirement of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) was not satisfied.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed. The said appeal was instituted against an order of the Trial Court summoning the Appellants to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated, “A perusal of the Application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the CrPC reveals that the alleged casteist abuses were stated to have been used by the Appellants inside the premises of the complainant. This circumstance, on its face, does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the abuses were made “in any place within public view,” which is an essential component of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The house of the complainant cannot be considered to be within public view.”
“In our considered view, the High Court erred in concluding that the incident occurred in public view. A careful reading of the complaint makes it evident that the alleged caste based abuses were uttered inside the premises, in the presence of the Appellants and Respondent No. 2. Therefore, the essential requirement of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not satisfied”, it added.
Factual Background
The second respondent, belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community, was employed as a sweeper in the village. According to her, the first Appellant allegedly compelled her on multiple occasions to remove garbage from his house and, upon her refusal, threatened to implicate her and her children in criminal proceedings. It was alleged that the Appellant, along with his son (second Appellant) and servant (third Appellant), began hurling abuses at her, assaulting her and thereafter started forcing themselves upon her. It was further alleged that the Appellants chased her, entered her house and directed caste-based abuses at her. It was claimed that they tore her clothes, threatened her and also assaulted her son.
When the Respondent approached the Police Station to file the complaint, the police allegedly refused to do so under the influence of the Appellants. The second Respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Special Judge, which led to the registration of a Complaint under Sections 323, 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act against the Appellants. A separate complaint was also filed before the National Commission for Women. The Special Judge issued summons to the Appellants under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC, and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Appellants preferred a Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court, challenging the said summoning order, but the same came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Referring to Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which provides for punishments for offences of atrocities, the Bench explained that the expression “any place within public view” has been interpreted by the Court in numerous decisions. Reference was made to the judgment in Karuppudayar v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy wherein it has been reaffirmed that 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.
Considering that the alleged casteist abuses were stated to have been used by the Appellants inside the premises of the complainant, the Bench held that the house of the complainant cannot be considered to be within public view. It was further noticed that the counsel appearing for the Respondent was unable to show that the complaint or the statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC contained any specific averment that the caste based abuses were hurled at a place within public view. Noting that the essential requirement of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was not satisfied, the Bench held that a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(s) was not made out against the Appellants.
“It is beyond dispute that the appellate powers are to be invoked with due caution, and only in exceptional circumstances. It is equally well established that the Court cannot delve into the truthfulness or credibility of the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint. The Appellate Court has to examine the contents of the complaint as they stand. In the facts of the present case, the High Court ought to have exercised its appellate powers to quash the summoning order with respect to offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act”, the order read.
Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the proceedings initiated against the Appellants under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act but ordered, “However, the trial insofar as it pertains to the remaining offences under the IPC shall proceed in accordance with law.”
Cause Title: Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1397)