Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a charge-sheet under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act because, even on the FIR's own version, the caste abuse took place inside the complainant's office chamber with no member of the public present, so it did not occur 'in any place within public view'. The High Court had not considered this contention at all.
Issues
- Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, made out offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, in particular the element of 'any place within public view'.
- Whether the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(1)(r), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Read as requiring intentional insult or intimidation, with intent to humiliate, of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member in any place within public view. Since the alleged abuse happened inside the complainant's chamber before any colleague arrived, the public-view element was missing. (¶¶ 8, 9, 15, 18)
- Section 3(1)(s), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989Read as requiring abuse of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member by caste name in any place within public view; held not attracted for the same reason, as the incident was not within public view. (¶¶ 8, 9, 15, 18)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Although the inherent power is to be used sparingly and without testing the reliability of the allegations, the case fell within the first Bhajan Lal category (allegations taken at face value disclose no offence), so the proceedings were quashed. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Held
- Following Swaran Singh and Hitesh Verma, a place is 'within public view' when it is open so that members of the public can see or hear what the accused says to the victim. An incident inside four walls where no member of the public is present does not take place within public view. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- On the FIR's own account, the accused abused the complainant by caste name inside the complainant's office chamber, and his colleagues came in only afterwards to pacify the accused and take him away. The incident therefore did not take place within public view, and neither Section 3(1)(r) nor Section 3(1)(s) was attracted. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The power under Section 482 CrPC must be used sparingly, and the court cannot enquire into whether the allegations are reliable or genuine; but it may quash where the case falls within a Bhajan Lal category. Here the allegations, even accepted in full, disclosed no prima facie offence under the SC-ST Act, which is the first category. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- The High Court erred in not dealing at all with the argument, pressed before it, that the FIR did not show the offence was committed in public view. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court order dated 28.02.2024 set aside; charge-sheet in Spl. S.C. No. 7 of 2022 and all proceedings under it quashed.