SC-ST Man Abused By Calling Him Caste Name In A Place Not Within Public View: Supreme Court Quashes Chargesheet Filed Against Accused
The Appeals before the Apex Court challenged the judgment passed by the Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the quashing petition filed by the Appellant.
The Supreme Court made it clear that 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. 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 Appeals before the Apex Court challenged the judgment passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras dismissing the petitions filed by the Appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR).
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “No doubt, that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It is equally settled that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint”
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2021 when the Appellant approached Respondent No. 3 (Revenue Inspector) in order to inquire regarding the status of a petition filed in the name of the Appellant’s father concerning the inclusion of his father’s name in the patta for the land situated in Sembarai village. A quarrel developed between the Appellant and the Inspector whereby the Appellant abused the Inspector by using his caste name in the Revenue Divisional Office.
The Inspector lodged a complaint and a case was registered against the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC-ST Act). Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings so also the trial, the Appellant filed petitions under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court to call for the records and quash the same. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
Referring to Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act, the Bench explained that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Similarly, 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.
On the aspect of “public view”, the Bench clarified, “It could thus be seen 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. 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.”
Taking the allegations in the FIR at their face value, the Bench noticed that the incident had taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant. The other colleagues of the complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of the incident. “We are, therefore, of the considered view that since the incident has not taken place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view, the offence would not come under the provisions of either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act”, the Bench said.
Referring to the exception carved out in the judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) where the Court can exercise discretion under section 482 CrPC, the Bench held, “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. We are of the considered view that the case would fall under the first category, listed by this Court in Paragraph 102 in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).”
Thus, allowing the Appeal, the Bench quashed the charge sheet and the proceedings.
Cause Title: Karuppudayar v. State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Ors (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 132)
