Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) after noting that the mere presence of the witnesses in the school premises did not establish that the alleged caste-related utterance was made within public view.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing an appeal filed under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and refusing to interfere with the summoning order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated, “None of these witnesses stated that they were present inside the office when the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered or that they heard any caste-based words. While they stated that they were present in the school, their statements do not establish that they witnessed or heard the alleged caste-based abuse. Their mere presence in the school premises, therefore, does not establish that the alleged utterance was made within public view. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State could not demonstrate anything to the contrary.”

“In the present case, the essential requirement that the alleged caste-based insult or intimidation occurred at a place within public view is not borne out by the material on record”, it added.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Agarwal represented the Appellant while AOR Sudeep Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The sons of the second Respondent were studying in the school where the appellant was the Manager. One of the sons of the second Respondent suffered injuries in a quarrel with other students. It was alleged that the appellant abused and assaulted the second Respondent with sticks and fists, along with the school staff, causing him injuries. It was further alleged that the appellant used caste-based abuses against the Respondent. The chargesheet was filed against the appellant and the co-accused persons. The Special Judge took cognisance of the offences, and the case was registered. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court.

An FIR was lodged by the appellant’s wife against the second Respondent for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, stating that while she was in the school office, the second Respondent abused and assaulted her, following which the appellant intervened and was also assaulted. A chargesheet was filed against the second Respondent, and cognisance was taken by the Magistrate. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal. It held that the mere fact that the present case was lodged as a counterblast could not, by itself, be a ground to quash the chargesheet or the summoning order.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the FIR did not state that the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered in the presence or hearing of members of the public. On the contrary, the incident was alleged to have occurred inside a room in the school. The Bench found that the room was enclosed and had no window or public access.

The Bench also noted that the prosecution case suffered from the absence of any specific allegation of caste-based abuse against the appellant. “Neither the FIR nor the statement of Respondent No. 2 attributes any specific caste-based words or slurs to the appellant. The allegation that Respondent No. 2 was abused on the basis of his caste remains general in nature. The material relied upon by the prosecution, at the highest, discloses a quarrel and scuffle between the parties. It does not disclose any specific caste-based utterance attributable to the appellant”, it added.

Considering that the material did not establish that the alleged utterances were made in the presence or hearing of members of the public, the Bench held that the essential requirement of “public view” was not satisfied. Holding that the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie made out against the appellant, the Bench clarified that the summoning order insofar as it related to the aforesaid offences, could not be sustained.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the proceedings arising out of the case registered under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant.

Cause Title: Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 895)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Siddhartha Agarwal, AOR Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Advocates Ruchi Krishna Chauhan, Mugdha, Pragya Jaishwal, Pranay Bhardwaj

Respondent: AOR Sudeep Kumar, Advocate Manisha

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: