Caste Based Insults Between Husband & Wife Offence Under SC/ST Act If Made In Public View: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that caste based insults between husband and wife cannot be stated to be an offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless the same is made in public view and witnessed by at least one person.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of a case registered against him under Section 504 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal held, "In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, this Court holds that the allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, as the alleged acts were not committed in public view. Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Vimal Verma Vasireddy, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor E. Ganesh.

Facts of the Case

The de-facto complainant lodged a report against the Petitioners. The 1st Petitioner and de-facto complainant married on January 19, 2014 which is an inter-caste marriage. After the said marriage, they lived in Hyderabad, and they have purchased a car jointly. However, the Petitioner’s family humiliated the complainant over his caste, calling him derogatory names and burning his clothes at their home. Due to these tensions, marital life of de-facto complainant was disturbed. The Petitioner complained about the Complainant’s parents and forced him to move out. They lived separately in a rented luxury apartment, but conflicts over lifestyle expenses and the Petitioners’ demands for a more lavish life caused frequent arguments. In February 2017, the complainant moved to Mumbai for work but later convinced the Petitioner to reunite. The Petitioner then lived mostly alone in a luxury apartment in Hyderabad, with occasional visits from the Complainant, who continued financial support.

In July 2018, after celebrating the Petitioner’s birthday, she suddenly demanded divorce, accompanied by caste-based insults and threats, including statements to ruin the complainant and his family. She threatened to file false cases and humiliated him by smoking at home, which was unusual behavior. From July 17, 2018, she sent WhatsApp messages insisting on divorce, citing “cultural differences” mostly related to caste issues. The complainant agreed to mutual divorce but asked for return of money and joint assets. The Petitioner initially agreed but later refused and imposed conditions, refusing to appoint a lawyer or family member to facilitate the divorce. She verbally abused the complainant, demanded he leave the house, and threatened him with eviction and further harassment.

Counsel for the Petitioner cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2020) and submitted that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 is not attracted in the present case, as all the allegations made against the Petitioner relate to matrimonial disputes, which culminated in a mutually agreed divorce.

Counsel for the unofficial Respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that whether the incident occurred within the four walls of a private residence or in public view is a matter of evidence, which can only be decided during the course of trial.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, observed that the nature of the allegations does not clearly demonstrate any specific instance wherein the Petitioners are shown to have abused or humiliated the de facto complainant in the name of his caste, along with the place, time, and manner of such occurrence

Stating that there is no material to indicate that the alleged incident occurred in a public place or in public view, as is required to attract the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 2015, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr (2020).

"Upon a perusal of the record and considering the submissions of both parties, this Court finds that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose that the incident took place in a public place or was witnessed by any independent persons, as required under the law. The alleged acts were part of domestic discord between the parties and appear to have occurred within the confines of a private residence", the Court ruled.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Case No.- Criminal Petition No.3799 of 2021

Click here to read/ download Order