In an appeal filed before the Supreme Court to assail a judgment dated 08-07-2025 by the Allahabad High Court whereby a criminal appeal by the appellants was dismissed, a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta found that the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not satisfied and partly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
The said appeal was filed under Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST Act for setting aside an order dated 12-09-2024 by the Trial Court whereby the appellants were summoned to face trial for committing offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Respondent 2 belonged to the SC/ST community and was employed as a sweeper in the village. Appellant 1 allegedly compelled respondent 2 on multiple occasions to remove garbage from his house and, upon refusal, threatened to implicate her and her children in criminal proceedings. On 23-07-2023, appellant 1, along with his son (appellant 2) and servant (appellant 3), hurled abuses at respondent 2 apart from assaulting her and forcing themselves on her.
Respondent 2 ran back to her house, but the appellants chased her, tore her clothes, and directed caste-based abuses at her. Thereafter, the appellant 3 assaulted her son. When she approached the police to lodge a complaint, they refused to do so.
On 06-10-2023, respondent 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which led to the registration of her complaint under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Another complaint was filed before the National Commission for Women on 26-07-2023.
The appellants alleged that respondent 2’s son had assaulted appellant 3 with a sharp-edged weapon with the intention to kill, and that he also attempted to assault appellant 1. Hence, a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 307 and 308 was registered on the same day against the son of respondent 2. The appellants preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court challenging a summoning order dated 12-09-2024 issued by the Special Judge, which was dismissed, and the order of the Trial Court was upheld.
The Court perused the application filed by respondent 2 under Section 156(3) and noted that the alleged abuses were hurled by the appellants within her premises. It was said that this circumstance does not satisfy the statutory requirement as per Section 3(1)(s), SC/ST Act, that the abuses were made “in any place within public view”.
Further, the Court opined that the High Court had erred in concluding that the incident occurred in public view. After scrutinising the material on record, the Court said that a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was not made out against the appellants. It was stated that the Court cannot delve into the truthfulness or credibility of the allegations in the FIR or complaint, and that the appellate court must examine the complaint as it stands.
Thus, the Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, but directed the trial to proceed for the remaining offences under IPC. The Court partly set aside the impugned judgment while partly allowing the appeal.
